ManuaL Highway Runoff 2019

Highway Runoff
Manual
M 31-16.05
April 2019
Engineering and Regional Operations

Development Division, Design Office
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information
Materials can be provided in alternative formats by calling the ADA Compliance Manager
at 360-705-7097. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact that number via the
Washington Relay Service at 7-1-1.
Title VI Notice to Public

It is Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) policy to ensure no person
shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise
discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who
believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office
of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For Title VI complaint forms and advice, please contact OEO’s
Title VI Coordinator at 360-705-7082 or 509-324-6018.
To get the latest information on individual WSDOT publications, sign up for email updates at:
 www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to the HRM

Chapter 1 Contents
1-1 Purpose, Need, and Scope ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1-2 Regulatory Standing of the Manual........................................................................................ 1-1
1-2.1 Local Requirements ................................................................................................... 1-2
1-2.2 Presumptive vs. Demonstrative Approaches to Protecting Water Quality................... 1-3
1-3 Organization of This Manual .................................................................................................. 1-4
1-4 How to Use This Manual ........................................................................................................ 1-5
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 1-i

April 2019
Contents Chapter 1
Page 1-ii WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Chapter 1 Introduction to the HRM
1-1 Purpose, Need, and Scope

The Highway Runoff Manual (HRM) directs the planning and design of stormwater
management facilities for new and redeveloped Washington State highways, rest areas,
park and ride lots, ferry terminals, and highway maintenance facilities statewide. The HRM
establishes minimum requirements and provides uniform technical criteria for:
1. Avoiding and mitigating impacts to water resources associated with the development
of state-owned and/or operated transportation infrastructure systems.
2. Reducing and minimizing water resource impacts associated with the redevelopment
of those facilities.
3. Retrofitting existing facilities for project-driven, opportunity-based, and stand-alone
stormwater retrofit projects.
The manual also provides guidelines for integrating the planning and design of stormwater-
related project elements into the context of the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) project development process.
This manual frequently references the Hydraulics Manual to address the analysis and design of
hydraulic features. The two manuals are used in tandem to complete the analysis and design of
stormwater facilities and the other drainage components within the project.
The design criteria and procedures presented in this manual supersede conflicting information
presented in other previously published WSDOT manuals. The manual receives periodic
updates to enhance content clarity, as well as reflect changes in regulations, advances in
stormwater management, and improvements in design tools.
 To ensure the PEO is using the most current design criteria, see the post-publication
updates on the HRM website:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/HighwayRunoffManual.htm
 To receive email announcements regarding HRM-related updates, training opportunities,
and improvements in design tools, please sign up at HRM Electronic Mailing List.
1-2 Regulatory Standing of the Manual

The HRM covers the entire state and meets the level of stormwater management established
by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in its Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Stormwater Management Manual for
Eastern Washington (SWMMEW). The requirements and guidelines vary for western and
eastern Washington and take into account statewide variations in climate, soils, geology,
receiving water characteristics, and environmental concerns.
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 1-1

April 2019
Introduction to the HRM Chapter 1
The guidelines and criteria in the HRM also support WSDOT’s efforts to comply with the
requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, unlike Ecology’s formal
review and approval process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Fisheries and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) did not review the Ecology
stormwater management manuals or the HRM for programmatic “concurrence” under the ESA.
1-2.1 Local Requirements

In most instances, local stormwater management requirements will not override the
requirements in this manual. RCW 47.01.260(1) grants WSDOT plenary power in planning,
locating, designing, constructing, improving, repairing, operating, and maintaining state
highways, including drainage facilities and channel changes necessary for the protection
of such highways. This grant of authority means that, without express legislative direction,
WSDOT is not subject to local ordinances in areas within WSDOT’s purview, and attempts
by local agencies to enforce such preempted ordinances are unconstitutional.
Statewide, WSDOT will apply the HRM minimum requirement thresholds to determine
treatment and/or flow control requirements for WSDOT projects discharging to receiving
waters.
The HRM thresholds are also valid for determining minimum requirements when discharging to
another jurisdiction’s MS4 (in Phase I/II NPDES covered areas) since the HRM has been deemed
equivalent to Ecology’s SWMMWW and SWMMEW. WSDOT projects exceeding HRM minimum
requirement thresholds will apply minimum requirements, BMP selection, and BMP design per
the HRM, excluding those exceptions listed below.
One exception where more stringent stormwater management requirements may apply is
when a state highway is located in the jurisdiction of a local government that is required by
Ecology to use more stringent standards to protect the quality of receiving waters. In such a
case, WSDOT will comply with the same standards to promote uniform stormwater treatment.
The key emphasis here is that Ecology has to require the local government to use more stringent
standards (such as via an existing TMDL) rather than the local jurisdiction simply doing so of its
own accord.
Another exception is where a WSDOT project will discharge stormwater into a local
jurisdiction’s combined or storm sewer system. WSDOT will work with the local jurisdiction to
determine how to address any new impacts that may decrease the capacity of the combined or
storm sewer system and document the analysis and results in the hydraulic report. The key
emphasis here is that the local jurisdiction may have capacity constraints in the combined or
storm sewer system which apply to all discharges (including WSDOT) to the system.
Other instances where more stringent stormwater standards can apply are projects subject to
tribal government-adopted water quality standards or CWA Section 401 water quality
certifications, and to Growth Management Act adopted critical area ordinance requirements
that specifically apply to stormwater discharges.
Incorporation of local and regional stormwater requirements into project design is further
discussed in Sections 2-4.
Page 1-2 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Local agencies and private developers doing work on WSDOT right of way must use the HRM
when discharging to WSDOTs conveyance systems. If the local agency or private developer is
working on WSDOT right of way and discharges to the jurisdiction’s MS4 (in Phase I/II NPDES
covered areas), the local agency and private developer should follow the local jurisdiction’s
stormwater manual and requirements.
1-2.2 Presumptive vs. Demonstrative Approaches to Protecting

Water Quality
This manual provides technically sound stormwater management practices, equivalent to
guidance provided in Ecology’s stormwater management manuals, to achieve compliance with
federal and state water quality regulations through the presumptive approach. The PEO may
opt not to follow the manual’s stormwater management practices by seeking compliance via
the demonstrative approach. However, this requires that the project (1) collects and provides
appropriate supporting data demonstrating that the alternative approach protects water
quality and satisfies state and federal water quality laws; and (2) performs the technology-
based requirements of state and federal law.
Both the presumptive and demonstrative approaches require properly designed, constructed,
maintained, and operated stormwater management systems in order to:
 Prevent pollution of state waters and protect water quality, including compliance
with state water quality standards.
 Satisfy state requirements for all known available and reasonable methods of
prevention, control, and treatment of wastes prior to discharge to waters of the state.
 Satisfy the federal technology-based treatment requirements under 40 CFR Part 125.3.
Under the presumptive approach, projects that follow the stormwater best management
practices (BMPs) contained in this manual are presumed to have satisfied this demonstration
requirement and do not need to provide technical justification to support the selection of
BMPs. Following the stormwater management practices in this manual means adhering to the
criteria provided for proper selection, design, construction, implementation, operation, and
maintenance of BMPs. This approach will generally be more cost-effective for typical WSDOT
projects.
However, in some cases, it may not be practicable to provide treatment or flow control for
runoff from project-site areas, due to various constraints such as site limitations, costs, or other
obstacles. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, opportunities that use this manual’s off-site
treatment options exist. Appendix 2A and Section 3-5 present a process for analyzing off-site
treatment options. WSDOT will continue to develop, pursue, and expand off-site options.
However, these options are currently constrained to the “in-kind” variety, as Ecology will
not authorize the use of “out-of-kind” mitigation options. 1 Under the demonstrative approach,
1
The term “in-kind” refers to methods that meet the requirements of those they are replacing, such as constructing
a flow control facility off site for unmet project flow control requirements. The term “out-of-kind” mitigation is
mitigation that does not directly match the project requirements, such as water quality treatment instead of flow
control.

April 2019
the timeline and expectations for providing technical justification of stormwater management
practices depend on the complexity of the individual project and the nature of the receiving
water environment or discharge location. In each case, the PEO may be asked to document, to
the satisfaction of Ecology or other approval authority, that the practices selected will result in
compliance with the water quality protection requirements of the permit or of other local,
state, or federal water quality-based project approval conditions. This approach may be more
cost-effective for large, complex, or unusual types of projects. However, projects can also
benefit from pursuing this compliance pathway where site constraints or conditions make
applying the standard HRM guidelines impracticable. Contact the Highway Runoff Program
Manager in the HQ Hydraulics Section as soon in the design process as possible to initiate the
demonstrative approach process or to discuss possible alternatives.
1-3 Organization of This Manual

The HRM consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 describes the manual’s purpose, regulatory
standing, and application.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the WSDOT project design process and how to integrate the
stormwater/drainage design elements into that process. The chapter includes guidelines for
gathering predesign data and analyzing design alternatives.
 Appendix 2A presents a method to assist in determining when site-specific factors
could make constructing stormwater management facilities within or adjacent to
the highway right of way infeasible.
Chapter 3 describes the minimum requirements that apply to the planning and design of
stormwater facilities and best management practices. The chapter includes guidelines to
determine which of the nine minimum requirements apply to a given transportation project.
The chapter describes the purpose and the applicability of the minimum requirements. It also
provides guidelines for assessing (1) whether project-driven stormwater retrofit obligations can
be met on-site or off site, and (2) under what circumstances to provide stormwater
management retrofits beyond what the manual requires.
Chapter 4 describes the hydrologic analysis methods to use to design stormwater runoff
treatment and flow control facilities. This chapter also provides a detailed explanation of the
analysis methods as well as the supporting data and assumptions needed to complete the
design.
 Appendix 4A contains the websites and web links related to Chapter 4.
 Appendix 4B contains the TR55 Curve Number Tables.
 Appendix 4C covers eastern Washington design storm events.
 Appendix 4D contains infiltration rate design and testing methods.

April 2019
Chapter 5 guides the project designer through the selection of permanent stormwater
treatment, infiltration, and flow control BMPs and their design processes. Section 5-4 includes
detailed design criteria for each permanent BMP and Section 5-5 provides the maintenance
standards for the various BMPs. The chapter also includes a process for seeking authorization
to use emerging technologies and other alternative BMP options.
The former Chapter 6 is now a stand-alone Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Manual
(TESCM). The manual provides WSDOT the strategy for meeting the statewide stormwater
pollution prevention planning (SWPPP) discharge sampling and reporting requirements in the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General
Permit (CSWGP), which is issued by Ecology. It includes criteria for selecting appropriate
temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC), as well guidelines on water quality monitoring
for projects required to monitor runoff quality and receiving water effects during construction.
1-4 How to Use This Manual

Follow Chapter 2’s guidelines for integrating the planning and design of stormwater-related
project elements into the context of WSDOT’s project development process prior to using
Chapter 3 to determine the applicable minimum requirements for a specific project. In most
instances, this process will spur the need to design construction and post- construction BMPs
according to the criteria provided in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.
Most projects lend themselves to relatively straightforward application of one or more of the
BMP options presented in this manual. However, in some instances a site presents a challenge
and does not lend itself easily to the approaches prescribed herein. When these situations
arise, contact the following for assistance:
 BMP Selection – Region Hydraulics Engineer, then the HQ Hydraulics Section.
 Outfall Inventory/Field Screening Results, Stormwater Retrofit Priorities, NPDES
Municipal Stormwater Permit, and Water Quality Sampling – Staff in the HQ
Environmental Services Office’s (ESO’s) Stormwater and Watersheds Program.
 Spill Control, Containment, and Countermeasure Activities – Region environmental
staff, then staff in the HQ ESO’s Hazardous Materials Program.
 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Construction Site BMPs – Region
environmental staff, then staff in the HQ ESO’s Stormwater and Watersheds Program.
 Vegetation Management – Region and HQ Landscape Architects, then HQ Highway
Maintenance staff.
 Roadway Maintenance Practices – Region maintenance staff, then HQ Highway
Maintenance environmental staff.
 Emerging BMPs – Region Hydraulics Engineer and the HQ Hydraulics Section.
 Demonstrative Approach – HQ Hydraulics Section.

April 2019
A Highway Runoff Manual (HRM) certificate number is required for the stormwater designer
that designs a new stormwater BMP on WSDOT right of way (ROW) or modifies an existing
stormwater BMP on WSDOT ROW or where a stormwater BMP is designed or modified and will
be turned back to WSDOT ownership. The HRM certificate number is given to those who have
successfully passed the HRM training course. The HRM certificate number should match the
HRM version that the project is required to follow per the 2019 HRM Implementing Agreement.
The link to the training course is www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/Training.htm.

April 2019
CHAPTER 2
Stormwater Planning and

Design Integration
Chapter 2 Contents
2-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2-1.1 Development Team.................................................................................................... 2-1
2-1.2 Site Assessment ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2-1.2.1 Information Sources .................................................................................. 2-2
2-1.2.2 Geotechnical Evaluations ........................................................................... 2-3
2-1.2.3 Right of Way .............................................................................................. 2-4
2-1.2.4 Utilities ...................................................................................................... 2-5
2-1.3 Documentation .......................................................................................................... 2-5
2-1.3.1 Stormwater Scoping Package for Stand-Alone Stormwater
Retrofit Projects ........................................................................................ 2-5
2-1.3.2 Project Summary ....................................................................................... 2-5
2-1.3.3 Environmental Documentation .................................................................. 2-6
2-1.3.4 Hydraulic Report ........................................................................................ 2-6
2-1.3.5 Construction Planning................................................................................ 2-6
2-1.3.6 Contract Plan Sheets .................................................................................. 2-7
2-1.3.7 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E)................................................ 2-7
2-1.3.8 Underground Injection Control Wells......................................................... 2-7
2-2 Developer Projects ................................................................................................................ 2-7
2-3 Stormwater Facility Design Approach .................................................................................... 2-8
2-3.1 Context Sensitive Solutions ........................................................................................ 2-8
2-3.2 Stormwater Facility Design Strategy ........................................................................... 2-8
2-3.3 BMP Design and Project Timing.................................................................................. 2-9
2-4 Special Design Considerations ............................................................................................. 2-10
2-4.1 Critical and Sensitive Areas ...................................................................................... 2-10
2-4.1.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................. 2-10
2-4.1.2 Floodplains .............................................................................................. 2-10
2-4.1.3 Aquifers and Wellhead Protection Areas.................................................. 2-11
2-4.1.4 Streams and Riparian Areas ..................................................................... 2-12
2-4.2 303(d)- Listed Water Bodies and Approved TMDL Boundaries .................................. 2-12
2-4.3 Airports ................................................................................................................... 2-13
2-4.4 Bridges..................................................................................................................... 2-13
2-4.5 Ferry Terminals ........................................................................................................ 2-14
2-4.6 Maintenance Yards, Park and Ride Lots, and Rest Areas ........................................... 2-14
2-4.7 Watershed and Basin Plans ...................................................................................... 2-14

April 2019
Contents Chapter 2

DRAFT March 2019
Chapter 2 Stormwater Planning and Design Integration
2-1 Introduction
This chapter provides guidelines for integrating the planning and design of stormwater-related
project elements into the context of the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) project development process. How the process applies to a specific project depends on
the type, size, and complexity of the project and individual WSDOT regional business practices.
2-1.1 Development Team

Assessment and documentation of stormwater impacts and mitigation measures begin during
project scoping. The PEO team must involve appropriate participants as part of the scoping
process. Project type, size, and complexity factor in determining who to consult during the
development of the project’s stormwater strategy. Contact the Region Hydraulics Engineer to
determine the makeup of the development team. Normally, team members include Region
Hydraulics, Region Environmental, Region Materials Engineer, Region Maintenance, and the
project office. The PEO may need to expand the list to include region or Headquarters (HQ)
geotechnical engineers, the HQ Hydraulics Section, or others, depending on the project.
2-1.2 Site Assessment

Stormwater facility design is a major element for many projects. It requires significant advanced
data gathering and assessment to identify alternatives and develop accurate schedules and cost
estimates. Data needed to assess the project site aids in:
1. Determining project roadway alignment alternatives.
2. Assessing impacts the project will have on runoff and the local hydrology.
3. Determining minimum stormwater requirements.
4. Developing conceptual stormwater management alternatives.
Characterizing the site and adjacent areas allows the PEO to determine the limiting factors
controlling local hydrology. These limiting factors then become the focus of the PEO’s
stormwater management strategies.
A three-dimensional picture of site hydrology will emerge during the site assessment. This
picture will include natural and altered flow paths to the site from upstream areas and from the
site to downstream areas. The PEO must preserve natural drainage (see Minimum Requirement
4, Section 3-3.4). The PEO must identify all off-site flows coming to the site, including streams,
seeps, and stormwater discharges. The transportation facility must allow for passage of all off-
site flows; however, every effort should be made to keep off-site flows separate (via bypass)
from the highway runoff. The PEO should accommodate constructed off-site flows with WSDOT
utility permits that discharge to WSDOT’s stormwater systems.

April 2019
Stormwater Planning and Design Integration Chapter 2
Ensure runoff from WSDOT right of way does not adversely affect downstream receiving waters
and properties. Identify existing drainage impacts on downstream waters and properties during
scoping and correct those impacts as a part of the project. Identify drainage impacts using
multiple sources of information (see Section 2-1.2.1) and site visits during storms, if possible.
Section 4-7 in the Hydraulics Manual provides guidelines on performing and documenting
a downstream analysis. Use the preliminary downstream analysis for scoping purposes,
recognizing that the project design phase may require a more detailed analysis. Include
the final downstream analysis in the Hydraulic Report.
During the scoping phase, begin identifying natural areas for conservation within or adjacent
to the project boundary. Conserving these areas minimizes project impacts and, given the
appropriate site conditions, may serve as part of the project’s stormwater management
approach for dispersion and infiltration. (See Chapters 4 and 5 for information regarding
dispersion and infiltration.)
Conservation areas and their functions require permanent protection under conservation
easements or other locally acceptable means. Label conservation areas falling within the
right of way on the right of way plan. Obtain a conservation easement or similar real estate
protection instrument for conservation areas falling outside the right of way.
2-1.2.1 Information Sources

As a starting point, the PEO will need the following existing information for site assessments:
 Project vicinity and site maps
 Land cover types and areas (aerial photographs)
 Topography (USGS quadrangle maps, LIDAR, and other survey maps)
 Land surveys
 Watershed or drainage basin boundaries
 Drainage patterns and drainage areas
 Receiving waters
 Wetlands
 Stream flow data
 Stormwater conveyances (pipes and ditches and open-channel drainage)
 Floodplain delineations
 Utility types and locations
 Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
 Clean Water Act Section 303(d)-listed impaired waters
 Soil types, depth, and slope (Natural Resources Conservation Service soil surveys)
 Soil infiltration rates (see Section 2-1.2.2)

April 2019
 Vegetation surveys
 Stormwater discharge points, including outfalls and connections to and from other
storm sewer systems
 Stormwater features inventory in GIS to find WSDOT drainage information
 Use the Highway Activity Tracking System (HATS) and Stormwater BMP Specifications
(SWABS) web application to find information on existing stormwater BMPs
 Land use types and associated pollutants
 Adjacent development and stormwater facilities – in particular, any nearby infiltration
facilities
 Groundwater data (including depth to seasonal high water table)
 Presence of hazardous materials or wastes
 Presence of cultural resources
 Average daily traffic (ADT)
 Roadway geometry (profiles/superelevations)
 Geotechnical evaluation (see Section 2-1.2.2)
Use WSDOT’s GIS Workbench (an ArcView geographic information system tool) to access
detailed site, environmental, and natural resource management data as well as generate maps
to help with the project assessment, the selection of stormwater management alternatives, and
the determination of maintenance applications.
2-1.2.2 Geotechnical Evaluations

Understanding the soils, geology, geologic hazards, and groundwater conditions at the project
site is essential to optimizing the project’s stormwater design. Contact the Region Materials
Engineer (RME) and staff from the HQ Geotechnical Office as early as possible in the scoping
phase for inclusion on the scoping and design team.
Dispersion and Infiltration are the preferred methods for the management of stormwater
runoff. Chapters 4 and 5 provide direction on how to apply optimal infiltration for stormwater
management on transportation projects. However, the PEO needs to assess the extent to which
infiltration can be used during the scoping phase because of its direct impact on stormwater
alternatives and costs. The degree to which runoff can infiltrate depends on the project location
and context. Limiting factors include soil characteristics, depth to groundwater, and designated
aquifer protection areas.
The RME evaluates the geotechnical feasibility of stormwater facilities that may be needed for
the project. With assistance from the HQ Geotechnical Engineer, as needed, the RME gathers
all available geotechnical data pertinent to the assessment of the geotechnical feasibility of
the proposed stormwater facilities. Some subsurface exploration may be required at this stage,
depending on the adequacy of the geotechnical data available to assess feasibility. Refer to the
Design Manual, Section 610.04, for additional details.

April 2019
The scoping office develops the stormwater facility conceptual design using input from
the RME and the HQ Geotechnical Engineer. Based on this design and investigative effort,
fatal flaws in the proposed stormwater plan are identified as well as potential design and
construction problems that could affect project costs or the project schedule. Consider the
following critical issues:
 Depth to water table (including any seasonal variations)
 Presence of soft or otherwise unstable soils
 Presence in soils of shallow bedrock or boulders that could adversely affect
constructability
 Presence of existing adjacent facilities that could be adversely affected by construction
of the stormwater facilities
 Presence of existing or planned underground utilities that could provide preferential
flow paths for infiltrated water
 Presence of geologic hazards such as earthquake faults, abandoned mines, landslides,
steep slopes, or rockfall
 Adequacy of drainage gradient to ensure functionality of the system
 Potential effects of the proposed facilities on future corridor needs
 Maintainability of the proposed facilities
 Potential impacts on adjacent wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas
 Presence of hazardous materials/contaminated soils and/or groundwater in the area
 Whether or not the proposed stormwater plan will meet the requirements of resource
agencies
 Infiltration capacity (infiltration and percolation rates for project sites)
 Presence of and potential impacts to floodplains
To characterize the seasonal variation of the groundwater table, the PEO may need to install
piezometers at potential infiltration sites during scoping. One year of monitoring is desirable.
At a minimum, one full rainy season is necessary to acquire the data needed to make a
determination of site suitability. (See Section 4-5 for additional information.)
2-1.2.3 Right of Way

Once the stormwater requirements for the project are understood, the general hydrologic site
characteristics are known (including approximate groundwater table elevations), and the
stormwater design alternatives are determined, the PEO can estimate the area necessary for
stormwater facilities. Refer to Chapters 4 and 5 to estimate the required area for each facility.
Examine the proposed layout of the project, and determine the most suitable sites available to
locate the stormwater facilities. Determine where facilities are proposed outside existing right
of way and establish estimates for right of way acquisition areas and costs.

April 2019
2-1.2.4 Utilities
The project design office must contact the Region Utilities Office to obtain information about
whether existing utilities have franchises or easements within the project limits. 1 Whenever
proposed stormwater facilities conflict with an existing utility’s right of way and facilities, a
utility agreement is required. WSDOT may be responsible for the relocation costs, the utility
owner may be responsible for the costs, or the costs may be shared. Refer to the Utilities
Manual for further information about utility elements.
2-1.3 Documentation
For a general list of documents required to be preserved in the Design Documentation Package
and the Project File, see the Design Documentation Checklist at:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/projectdev/
2-1.3.1 Stormwater Scoping Package for Stand-Alone Stormwater Retrofit

Projects
The stormwater scoping package refers to the stormwater documentation developed during
the scoping phase of project development. This package contains the information used to
preliminarily determine project stormwater impacts and the initial selection of stormwater
BMPs. It provides the stormwater information needed to complete the Project Summary
documents.
The stormwater scoping package plays a critical role in project development and must be
retained and easily retrievable. Upon project programming and assignment to a project
office, the file and report become the starting point for the design phase. Refer to the
stormwater scoping instructions on the HRM webpage at:
2-1.3.2 Project Summary

As described in Section 2-3, the product of scoping is the Project Summary. The Project
Summary is developed and approved before funding the project for design and construction.
It documents the results of the scoping process and defines the overall scope of the proposed
solution in terms of the work and material involved. This documentation also links the project
to the Washington State Highway System Plan and the Capital Improvement and Preservation
Program (CIPP).
1
Underground utilities are often embedded in sand or gravel to protect them from native soils and rocks. These
treatments can also act as French drains and provide preferential flow paths for water infiltrated on site. The project
may need to install check dams or impermeable liners around these utility trenches to prevent this.

April 2019
2-1.3.3 Environmental Documentation

Environmental documentation begins after the approval of the Project Summary. The State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require
thorough documentation of stormwater-related environmental impacts and tracking of
stormwater design commitments. To aid in the accurate exchange of stormwater-related
information from the design team to workgroups preparing environmental documentation
and permit applications, the PEO must prepare a Stormwater Design NEPA/SEPA
Documentation Checklist and accompanying Stormwater Design Documentation Spreadsheet.
Access the Checklist and Spreadsheet separately at:
Projects with a federal nexus (those with federal funding, permit, or approval) must go
through consultation according to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The ESA Stormwater Design Checklist, which differs for eastern and western Washington,
assists in providing pertinent information about a project’s stormwater treatment facilities
to biologists responsible for preparing biological assessments required for consultation
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Access both versions of the Checklist at:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/fish-wildlife/policies-and-procedures/esa-
ba/preparation-manual#BA template
PEOs are responsible for any stormwater related environmental commitments made during the
SEPA/NEPA process including those made in responses to comments in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Assessment (EA). These stormwater commitments
are in addition to the HRM minimum requirements. When commitments for stormwater
treatment are made during the environmental process, those commitments must be tracked in
the WSDOT Commitment Tracking Database and complied with. If a stormwater related
environmental commitment from the SEPA/NEPA process conflicts with the HRM minimum
requirements, the PEO needs to work with the Region Hydraulics Engineer to ensure the
necessary HRM Minimum Requirements are met. A stormwater deviation must be submitted to
the DAT and needs approval before any stormwater related environmental commitment is
implemented that may result in less protection than the HRM’s Minimum Requirements.
2-1.3.4 Hydraulic Report

The Hydraulic Report serves as a complete record containing the engineering justification for all
drainage modifications that occur as a result of project construction, including documentation
of the analysis and design for the post-construction stormwater management system. Refer to
the Hydraulics Manual for additional details.
2-1.3.5 Construction Planning

During the design phase, the PEO must produce key stormwater documents to meet
stormwater site planning requirements associated with Minimum Requirement 1 (see Section
3-3-1).

April 2019
 All projects require spill prevention, control, and countermeasures (SPCC) plans
prepared by the contractor after award of the project contract. The WSDOT Hazardous
Materials Program
(www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/disciplines/hazardous-materials) and
Section 1 07.15(1) in the Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction (Standard Specifications) provide more information regarding SPCC plan
expectations. To ensure plan implementation, develop provisions of the SPCC plan
during the PS&E phase (see Section 2-1.3.7).
 For soil-disturbing projects, the PEO must also prepare temporary erosion and
sediment control (TESC) plans (see the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
Manual).
2-1.3.6 Contract Plan Sheets

Identify all stormwater best management practices (BMPs) using names and numbers found
in Chapter 5, as well as conservation areas and other drainage and environmental elements on
the contract plan sheet. Division 4 of the Plans Preparation Manual defines the development of
the contract plan sheets.
2-1.3.7 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E)

Prepare the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates during the PS&E phase of a project. These
documents translate the stormwater management elements of the design into a contract
document format for project advertisement, bidding, award, and construction.
2-1.3.8 Underground Injection Control Wells

Drywells and infiltration trenches containing perforated pipe are considered injection wells
and require registration per the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology’s)
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. Registration information is available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/ecy04047a.html. Fill out the
registration form and submit to WSDOT’s Stormwater Features Inventory Coordinator for
registration with Ecology and entry into WSDOT’s UIC Registration and Assessment database.
For further guidelines, see Section 4-5.4 and consult region environmental staff or HQ
Environmental Services Office staff.
2-2 Developer Projects

WSDOT must provide for the passage of existing off-site flows through its right of way to
maintain natural drainage paths. Private developer projects that discharge to a WSDOT right
of way or storm sewer system must comply with the provisions of the Highway Runoff Manual
(HRM), Ecology stormwater management manuals, or an Ecology-approved local equivalent
manual. The developer must also demonstrate that WSDOT conveyance systems have adequate
capacity to convey the developer’s flows in accordance with Hydraulics Manual conveyance
design standards. WSDOT will not concur with designs or allow discharges that do not comply
with these requirements.

April 2019
For details regarding WSDOT requirements and the process for review and concurrence of
private project drainage design, refer to the Development Services Manual and the Utilities
Manual.
2-3 Stormwater Facility Design Approach

Originally, the only function of highway stormwater management was to maintain safe driving
conditions using engineering techniques designed to prevent stormwater from ponding on
road surfaces. While maintaining safe driving conditions remains an essential function of the
highway drainage system, it is in the state’s vital interest to protect and preserve natural
resources and other environmental assets, as well as its citizens’ health and safety. These
interests have become integrated with other vital interests entrusted to the department,
including the cost-effective delivery and operation of transportation systems and services
that meet public needs. Thus, stormwater management objectives for WSDOT involve:
(1) protecting the functions of the transportation facility, and (2) protecting ecosystem
functions and the beneficial uses of receiving waters.
2-3.1 Context Sensitive Solutions

The PEO must recognize the importance of the watershed context where the project resides
to understand how transportation facilities, in combination with other development, can
affect the natural hydrology of watersheds and the water quality of receiving waters. This
understanding can guide the planner and designer in choosing stormwater management
solutions that more successfully achieve the objective of protecting Washington’s
ecosystems.
The context sensitive solutions (CSS) approach to transportation planning, also known as
context sensitive design, context sensitive sustainable solutions, and thinking beyond the
pavement, broadens the focus of the project development process to look beyond the basic
transportation issues and develop projects integrated with the unique context(s) of the project
setting. This approach considers the elements of mobility, safety, environment, community,
and aesthetics from the beginning to the end of the project development process. CSS also
involves a collaborative project development process that obligates participants to understand
the impacts and trade-offs associated with project decisions. Find further discussion of and
guidance on the context sensitive solutions approach at:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/policy/csdesign.htm
2-3.2 Stormwater Facility Design Strategy

Stormwater management facilities (runoff treatment and flow control) can mitigate both the
hydrologic impacts and the water quality impacts of a development project by applying the
following fundamental strategy:

April 2019
Maintain the preproject2 hydrologic and water quality functions of the project site as
it undergoes development.
Implement this strategy through the following hierarchy of steps:
1. Avoid impacts on hydrology and water quality.
2. Minimize impacts on hydrology and water quality.
3. Compensate for altered hydrology and water quality by mimicking natural
processes to the extent feasible.
4. Compensate for any remaining hydrology and water quality alterations using
end-of-pipe solutions.
Achieve Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 by minimizing impervious cover; conserving or restoring natural
areas; mimicking natural drainage patterns (for example, using sheet flow, dispersion,
infiltration, or open channels); disconnecting drainage structures to avoid concentrating runoff;
and using many small redundant facilities to treat, detain, and infiltrate stormwater. This
approach to site design reduces reliance on the use of structural management techniques.
Step 4 refers to the use of traditional engineering structural approaches (for example, detention
ponds) to the extent that Steps 1 through 4 cannot fully accomplish the strategy.
The methods listed for achieving Steps 1 through 4 are commonly referred to as low-impact
development (LID) approaches. By using the project site’s terrain, vegetation, and soil features
to promote infiltration, the landscape can retain more of its natural hydrologic function. Low-
impact development methods will not be feasible in all project settings, depending on the site’s
physical characteristics, the adjacent development, and the availability and cost of acquiring
right of way (if needed). However, the PEO must always use LID methods to the extent feasible.
This requires that the PEO understand the site’s soil characteristics, infiltration rates, water
tables, native vegetation, natural drainage patterns, and other site features. (See Section 4-5
for LID feasibility criteria.)
2-3.3 BMP Design and Project Timing

Stormwater mitigation to meet the project’s HRM Minimum Requirements must be
constructed and operational by the project’s construction close-out. Corridor projects that have
multiple stages or phases must provide stormwater mitigation to meet each stage or phase’s
HRM Minimum Requirements before each stage or phase’s construction close-out. An HRM
deviation and approval by the Demonstrative Approach Team (DAT - which includes an Ecology
representative) is required when the project, stage, or phase cannot provide stormwater
mitigation by construction close-out to meet the HRM Minimum Requirements. For design-bid-
build projects, DAT approvals must be approved before the hydraulic report is approved. This is
generally before the start of the PS&E phase. For design-build projects, HRM deviations are
typically identified and approved by the DAT during the Request for Proposal (RFP)
development.
2
The term preproject refers to the actual conditions of the project site before the project is built.

April 2019
Projects may provide stormwater mitigation for future projects only when those future projects
are to be advertised for construction within the same NPDES Municipal Stormwater permit
cycle (5-year permit cycle). This will minimize any stormwater and hydraulic design rework
since stormwater regulations could change during subsequent NPDES Municipal Stormwater
permit cycles. The Project Engineering Office (PEO) should consult the Region Hydraulics
Engineer if the stormwater mitigation for a future project may have an AD date outside of the
current NPDES Municipal Stormwater permit cycle.
2-4 Special Design Considerations

2-4.1 Critical and Sensitive Areas
State law requires local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances to protect critical areas. Critical areas
include wetlands, floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, and those
areas necessary for fish and wildlife conservation.
2-4.1.1 Wetlands
Minimum Requirement 7 (see Section 3-3.7) addresses wetland protection. While natural
wetlands generally cannot substitute for runoff treatment, Ecology’s Stormwater Management
Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) allows the use of lower-quality wetlands for
runoff treatment if hydrologic modification requirements are met. For detailed guidance on this
for eastern Washington projects, refer to Use of Existing Wetlands to Provide Runoff Treatment
(Section 2.2.5, page 2-26) and Application to Wetlands and Lakes (Section 2.2.6, page 2-33) in
Ecology's SWMMEW and the Eastern Washington Wetland Rating Form at:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/disciplines/wetlands/policies-procedures/recon-
assess#RatingForm
For western Washington projects that may potentially alter the wetland hydroperiod, refer to
Guide Sheet 3B in Appendix I-D of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (SWMMWW) to review the recommended allowable limits for altering the
hydroperiod of wetlands. Section 4-6 provides additional information on wetland hydroperiods.
Region or Headquarters hydraulics and environmental staff can provide further assistance on
hydroperiod modeling. For guidelines on wetland creation or restoration as mitigation for direct
wetland impacts, contact the region’s wetland biologist or consult the following website:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/disciplines/wetlands
2-4.1.2 Floodplains
Loss of hydrologic storage may require projects to mitigate the loss by creating new hydrologic
storage elsewhere in the watershed. A decision to locate structural detention facilities in
floodplains depends on the flow control benefits realized. If a detention facility placement
allows it to function through the 10-year flood elevation, it will accomplish most of its function
by controlling peaks during smaller, more frequent events that cumulatively cause more
damage. Stormwater facilities located outside the 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year flood elevations
do not compromise any flood storage during those floods. Some stormwater treatment

April 2019
facilities, such as filter strips, dispersion areas, or biofiltration swales, may be located within
some parts of the floodplain. Contact the Region Hydraulics Office or HQ Hydraulics Section for
guidance. Consult the Region Hydraulics Office to identify alternative mitigation opportunities
if locating stormwater facilities outside the 100-year floodplain presents a challenge.
2-4.1.3 Aquifers and Wellhead Protection Areas

To ensure highway improvement projects protect drinking water wells, WSDOT has
entered into an agreement (www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/m31-
11/agreements/ia_drinkingwell.pdf) with the State Department of Health (DOH). This
agreement includes the following screening criteria under which DOH does not consider
a highway project a potential source of contamination to drinking water wells:
1. Road location and construction setbacks are maintained such that the drinking
water source intake structure is not in danger of physical damage.
2. All concentrated flows of untreated roadway runoff are directed via impervious
channel or pipe and discharged outside the Sanitary Control Area (SCA).
3. If roadside vegetation management practices are identified as a potential source
of contamination, the water purveyor will provide the location of the SCA to the
appropriate WSDOT Maintenance Office for inclusion in the Integrated Vegetated
Management Plan for that section of highway as necessary to protect the wellhead.
4. WSDOT complies with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits,
as required per Section 402 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act.
5. WSDOT provides the well purveyor with contact information to be used in the event
of any problems or questions that may arise.
The PEO must gather and document information on all drinking water wells along the project
corridor. Refer to the local critical areas ordinances for details on aquifer and wellhead
protection areas applicable to the project site. To locate wells in the project site, check
Ecology’s website for listed well logs: apps.ecy.wa.gov/welllog/. This website contains a
database of wells constructed and registered since the 1930s and wells managed by Ecology
since 1971. The WSDOT GIS Workbench can also provide a preliminary assessment of wellhead
and aquifer protection areas in the vicinity of a given project. After conducting these queries,
follow up with field investigations to identify whether any unregistered wells exist. 3 Contact
region environmental staff early in the project design phase when wells exist within the radius
of concern.
County health departments set well protection buffers or sanitary control areas (SCAs),
presuming that the well protection buffer width will adequately protect wells from
contamination. When highway projects encroach into well SCAs, document how the project will
avoid impacting the well and water supply.
3
Area maintenance personnel are good sources of local knowledge. Check with them first before beginning field
investigations.

April 2019
If a road project expects to intersect a public water supply well’s SCA, contact the water
purveyor to confirm the location of the well and its SCA. If the project intersects the SCA, a
licensed professional engineer, using the screening criteria listed above, needs to establish the
conditions under which a highway project will not create potential sources of contamination
to drinking water wells. Then, the engineer needs to attest to the well purveyor in writing, on
WSDOT letterhead, that the project satisfies the screening criteria’s conditions. Having met the
conditions, WSDOT expects that the purveyor will identify and sign SCA-restrictive covenants
and/or WSDOT will check for such covenants filed with the County Auditor’s Office.
If an irresolvable dispute arises with the water purveyor regarding the project’s potential
impacts to a well, elevate the issue to HQ Environmental Services Office (ESO) Stormwater and
Watersheds Program staff. Likewise, contact HQ ESO Stormwater and Watersheds Program
staff to evaluate mitigation options if the project cannot meet the screening criteria.
Projects that include large cuts or compaction of soil over shallow aquifers could potentially
intercept groundwater flows and restrict the quantity of water reaching a well. The State
Department of Health agreement does not cover groundwater quantity issues. Thus, analyses
of potential groundwater quantity impacts must be conducted in consultation with the HQ
Materials Laboratory and the HQ Hydraulics Section.
2-4.1.4 Streams and Riparian Areas

Avoid encroachment into riparian areas. Place stormwater facilities away from the stream to
the extent practicable, and take measures to preserve or enhance riparian buffers.
2-4.2 303(d)- Listed Water Bodies and Approved TMDL Boundaries

If a water body reach does not meet water quality standards for a specific pollutant, it gets
added to the 303(d) list. The Department of Ecology is required to develop a Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) for water bodies on the 303(d) list to remedy the water quality impairment.
If the project’s stormwater will discharge to any 303(d)- listed water body or to a water body
within an approved TMDL-boundary, where feasible, select BMPs that: (1) reduce the
pollutant(s) of concern, and (2) avoid generating the pollutant(s) of concern to the listed water
body. The first page of each BMP section in Chapter 5 includes TMDL/303(d) considerations to
aid in BMP selection when discharging to an impaired water body. As a general rule, infiltration
and dispersion BMPs are the most desirable approach for 303(d) or TMDL situations.
To determine whether a 303(d)-listed water body or approved TMDL exists within or near the
proposed project site, access WSDOT’s GIS Environmental Workbench>Water Quality> “303(d)
Impaired Waters and TMDLs” dataset. View each layer in the dataset independently to identify
listings and boundaries that may overlap. Since 303(d) listings and approved TMDLs change
frequently, review these GIS layers at the start of each project to document all applicable
impairments. The Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Atlas has the most up to date
impairment information but it does not include helpful details such as milepost information.
For more information on TMDLs or 303(d) listings, contact the Stormwater and Watersheds
Program in the HQ Environmental Services Office (ESO), or access the WSDOT TMDL webpage

April 2019
(www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/disciplines/water-erosion/water-policies-
procedures), or visit Ecology's website (www.ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-
quality/Water-improvement/Total-Maximum-Daily-Load-process). (Ecology’s Water Quality
Atlas (open in MS Edge) https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterqualityatlas/StartPage.aspx)
2-4.3 Airports
The design of stormwater facilities for projects located near airports requires special
considerations. Roadside stormwater features, including BMPs with standing water (such
as wet ponds) and certain types of vegetation, can attract birds both directly and indirectly.
The presence of large numbers of birds near airports can create hazards for aircraft and
airport operations.
To decrease wildlife-aircraft interactions caused by stormwater facilities, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and WSDOT partnered to create the Aviation Stormwater Design Manual
(ASDM) to assist in the design, construction, and maintenance of stormwater facilities on and
near airports. The ASDM focuses on design modifications to decrease the attractiveness of
stormwater facilities to wildlife rather than active wildlife removal measures. Thus, the ASDM
supplements the HRM by providing design details for the types of stormwater facilities
recommended for an airport environment.
2-4.4 Bridges
The over-water portion of the bridge surface does not trigger Minimum Requirement 6 (flow
control requirement), since that area intercepts rainfall that would otherwise fall directly into
the receiving water body. However, the design must prevent runoff from generating localized
erosion between the bridge surface and the outfall to the water body. While this simplifies the
need for flow control, the over-water bridge surface is still considered a pollution-generating
impervious surface and is therefore subject to runoff treatment for pollutant removal. (See
the HRM Frequently Asked Questions for more information.)
Finding sufficient area to site stormwater treatment solutions for over-water crossings often
presents challenges. Traditionally, bridges were designed to discharge runoff directly into
the receiving waters by way of downspouts or scuppers. Today’s prohibition of this practice
requires that the designer incorporate runoff collection, conveyance, and treatment facilities
into the project design for these surfaces.
Avoid using suspended pipe systems to convey bridge runoff whenever possible, since these
systems tend to plug with debris, making maintenance difficult. The preferred method of
conveyance involves directing the runoff to larger inlets at the ends of the bridge. This method
requires adequate shoulder width to accommodate flows so they do not spread farther into the
traveled way than allowed (see Chapter 5 of the Hydraulics Manual for allowable spread widths).
For situations requiring closed systems, use larger bridge drain openings and pipe diameters as
well as avoid 90° bends to ensure the system’s operational integrity. The consideration of closed
systems requires early coordination with the HQ Bridge and Structures Office as well as the
HQ Hydraulics Section.

April 2019
2-4.5 Ferry Terminals

A ferry dock consists of the bridge (trestle and span), piers, and some of the holding area
(parking facility). The terminal consists of the dock and all associated upland facilities.
Requirements and consideration for the terminal’s upland facilities resemble those for park
and ride lots, rest areas, and maintenance yards as described in Section 2-4.6. Requirements
and considerations that apply to bridges also apply to the trestle, span, and other over-water
portions (see Section 2-4.4).
2-4.6 Maintenance Yards, Park and Ride Lots, and Rest Areas
Consult the Ecology stormwater management manuals for western (SWMMWW) and eastern
(SWMMEW) Washington for BMP design approaches pertaining to maintenance yards, park
and ride lots, and rest areas. These manuals provide more specific stormwater BMP
information related to parking lot and industrial settings. The PEO must use LID BMPs where
feasible for these facilities. (See Section 5-3.5 for more information.)
2-4.7 Watershed and Basin Plans

Contact entities with basin planning responsibilities as early as possible in the project planning
process. Such groups include lead entities under the Salmon Recovery Act and watershed
planning units under the Watershed Planning Act, as well as city and county public works
departments responsible for basin planning. Shared funding opportunities may exist for local
priority mitigation projects, which could significantly reduce project mitigation costs. Also,
such entities may have data and analyses useful in the project planning process.
 For information on activities under the Watershed Planning Act, including a map
of Washington’s water resource inventory areas, see:
www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html
 For information on activities under the Salmon Recovery Act, see:
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/recovery/partners.jsp
 For watershed data, reports, and other related information, see:
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Streamflow-
restoration/Watershed-plan-archive
Contact the Region Environmental Office or the HQ ESO Stormwater and Watersheds Program
to arrange meetings and help coordinate watershed-related efforts.

April 2019
APPENDIX 2A
Engineering and Economic Feasibility

Evaluation for Meeting the Highway Runoff
Manual Minimum Requirements
Appendix 2A Contents
2A-1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2A-1

2A-2 General Criteria: Engineering and Economic Feasibility of Constructing Stormwater
Control Facilities ................................................................................................................ 2A-2
2A-3 Engineering and Economic Feasibility Evaluation Process ................................................... 2A-2
2A-3.1 Collect Project Site Data to Identify Limiting Factors............................................. 2A-3
2A-3.2 Infrastructure Limitations to Construction Feasibility ........................................... 2A-4
2A-3.3 Geographic and Geotechnical Limitations to Construction Feasibility ................... 2A-5
2A-3.4 Hydraulic Limitations to Construction Feasibility .................................................. 2A-5
2A-3.5 Environmental or Health Risk Limitations to Construction Feasibility .................... 2A-5
2A-3.6 Maintenance Limitations to Construction Feasibility ............................................ 2A-6
2A-3.7 Cost Limitations to Construction Feasibility .......................................................... 2A-6
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2A-i

April 2019
Contents Appendix 2-A
Page 2A-ii WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Engineering and Economic Feasibility Evaluation for
Meeting the Highway Runoff Manual
Appendix 2A Minimum Requirements
2A-1 Introduction
The goal of every project is to meet all of the Minimum Requirements in the Highway Runoff
Manual (HRM). However, there are times when projects need to seek deviations or variances
from the standards for various justifiable reasons. This appendix provides a tool to help the PEO
through the process of documenting a stormwater deviation or variance from the standards
in the HRM.
The Engineering and Economic Feasibility (EEF) evaluation looks at many different site-specific
factors and has PEO evaluates each one. The project could fall under more than one form of
infeasibility due to site-specific factors, which would help to strengthen the case for a deviation.
The EEF evaluation is not an all-inclusive list, however. There may be other factors that could
be documented to support the stormwater deviation from HRM requirements.
Stormwater runoff from highways should be treated and controlled adjacent to or within the
right of way (ROW) when transportation improvement projects are constructed and trigger
the HRM’s Minimum Requirements. However, various site-specific factors (such as lack of
land availability, engineering constraints, health/safety issues associated with operations
and maintenance activities, or other obstacles) could make meeting the requirements in the
HRM difficult, if not impossible. The EEF evaluation presented in this appendix assists the PEO
in determining when site-specific factors could make constructing stormwater management
facilities within or adjacent to the highway right of way infeasible. Consult with the Region
Hydraulics Engineer and the Headquarters (HQ) Hydraulics Section prior to starting the EEF
process for additional guidance regarding scope and documentation.
The process has three parts:
1. Use the EEF evaluation to describe the problem.
2. Put together an alternate proposal for how the design will meet the required
stormwater obligations for the threshold discharge area (TDA) or project.
3. Present the EEF evaluation and proposed alternative to the Demonstrative Approach
Team (DAT).
After approval from the DAT, the PEO can then implement the proposed design deviation and
ensure proper documentation in the project’s Hydraulic Report. Contact the Highway Runoff
Program in the HQ Hydraulics Section to initiate the demonstrative approach and engage
the DAT.
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2A-1

April 2019
Engineering and Economic Feasibility for Meeting the HRM Minimum Requirements Appendix 2-A
2A-2 General Criteria: Engineering and Economic Feasibility

of Constructing Stormwater Control Facilities
Consider the following four general criteria in the siting and selection of stormwater best
management practices (BMPs). These criteria affect the feasibility of stormwater BMPs
and are further explained in the EEF Evaluation Process in Section 2A-3.
 Physical site limitations. In many cases, the amount of available right of way
determines which types of stormwater BMPs are feasible for the project. When
additional right of way can be acquired, or when eminent domain condemnations can
be demonstrably justified, the PEO should explore these options to acquire additional
land for stormwater BMPs 1. Condemning land for new stormwater BMPs may be a
long and difficult process since condemning land specifically for wetland mitigation
(also triggered by the federal Clean Water Act) has been extremely difficult on past
projects.
Additional site constraints could include geographic limitations, steep slopes, soil
instability, proximity to water bodies, presence of significant cultural resources,
presence of hazardous materials, and shallow water tables.
 Treatment effectiveness. Generally, consider BMPs with the highest pollutant-
removal efficiencies first. These practices may require more land area, thus
affecting space limitations.
 Costs and associated environmental benefits. Generally, choose the most cost-
effective method of meeting environmental requirements.
 Legal and policy issues. When selecting appropriate BMPs, also consider Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) stormwater requirements and design criteria, local ordinances,
Endangered Species Act concerns, and tort liability issues.
It is important to consider the site limitations preventing construction of stormwater BMPs. For
physical or economic reasons, it may not be feasible to construct full-scale stormwater BMPs.
2A-3 Engineering and Economic Feasibility Evaluation

Process
The goal of the EEF evaluation process is to document why presumptive BMPs are infeasible to
meet some or all of the minimum requirements for the project or TDA. The following sections 2
are intended for use during the design stage to determine whether construction of stormwater
BMPs is feasible within the immediate highway right of way.
1
Ecology has determined that low-impact development (LID) is infeasible if installing BMPs to meet the LID
requirements cannot be done within existing right of way. This is not the case for water quality treatment or flow
control requirements.
2
Sections 2A-3.1 to 2A-3.7 may include items that are not applicable to the project or TDA. List the item as not
applicable if that is the case. There may also be issues pertinent to the project that are not listed here but could be
included to bolster the argument.
Page 2A-2 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Appendix 2-A Engineering and Economic Feasibility for Meeting the HRM Minimum Requirements
2A-3.1 Collect Project Site Data to Identify Limiting Factors

Depending on the complexity of the project or site conditions, some of the data listed below
may not be required. Consult with the Region Hydraulics Engineer to determine applicable
items.
1. Locate the proposed ROW and/or easement available for stormwater facilities.
2. Determine the topographic and land cover characteristics of contributing basin areas.
3. Estimate the required runoff treatment and flow control by completing the
Stormwater Design and Documentation Spreadsheet:
4. Determine the proximity of the project site to water bodies and locate existing
discharge locations.
5. Identify water bodies designated as “impaired” under the provision of Section 303(d)
of the federal Clean Water Act, enacted by Public Law 92-500.
6. Identify water supply well locations and associated well protection zones.
7. Identify wildlife hazard management zones around airports.
8. Determine the soil properties at the proposed stormwater facility location. For
infiltration facilities, verify the site meets the requirements in Section 4-5.1, Site
Suitability Criteria.
9. Locate critical public infrastructure relative to the proposed ROW.
10. Identify and locate the existing land use in and adjacent to the ROW, including:
 Protected cultural resources, historical sites, parklands, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges (Department of Transportation Act of 1966 §4[f] properties).
 Areas designated as sensitive by a federal, state, local, or tribal government.
These areas include, but are not limited to: designated “critical water resources”
as defined in 33 CFR Part 330, Nationwide Permit Program, “Critical habitat” as
defined in Section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and areas identified
in local critical area ordinances or in an approved basin plan. (Additional items
are described in the soil suitability criteria).
11. Identify location(s) of established structure(s) on or adjacent to the proposed ROW.
12. Identify slopes and location(s) of unstable slopes on or adjacent to the proposed ROW.
13. Identify the presence and location of hazardous or dangerous materials on or adjacent
to the proposed ROW.
14. Identify and locate any old-growth or otherwise significant upland forest areas.
15. Identify and locate any well-established riparian tree canopies or vegetative buffers
on or adjacent to the proposed ROW.

April 2019
16. Identify the presence and distribution of 100-year floodplains on or adjacent to

the established or acquirable ROW.
17. Verify the conveyance requirements specified in the Hydraulics Manual are met.
18. For bridge projects, determine whether the bridge structure can be drained to
land by gravity feed.
19. Refer to Section 5-3.7, BMP Validation and Cost-Effectiveness, for costs for
constructing and maintaining the conceptual stormwater control facilities for
the drainage area.
2A-3.2 Infrastructure Limitations to Construction Feasibility

The density of the built environment adjacent to the established right of way may limit the
amount of land available for acquisition to construct stormwater BMPs. Once project limits, right
of way, and stormwater runoff treatment and flow control needs are defined, the PEO can
determine whether it is feasible to construct stormwater BMPs on site.
Consider the following questions when determining whether infrastructure or right of way
limits the feasibility of designing and constructing stormwater BMPs within or adjacent to
the right of way (in-ROW treatment). Each element evaluates potential fatal flaws that would
preclude the feasibility of constructing stormwater BMPs within the proposed right of way.
1. Will stormwater BMP construction relocate critical publically-owned infrastructure or
facilities, such as schools, fire stations, police facilities, or major utility lines/
infrastructure? 3
2. Is the land needed to construct the stormwater BMP available from a willing seller?
3. Can a multipurpose BMP be designed to fit within the proposed ROW and provide
the required project runoff treatment and flow control?
4. Can a flow control BMP be designed to fit in the proposed ROW?
5. Can a runoff treatment BMP be designed to fit in the proposed ROW?
6. Will the stormwater BMP disturb or trespass on designated historical/archaeological
sites or other significant cultural resources? 4
7. Is it feasible to purchase adjoining properties?
3
When the PEO identifies the location and nature of the critical public infrastructure(s), the PEO is required to
provide documentation to justify not constructing the BMP in the right of way.
4
Review any projects involving disturbance of ground surfaces not previously disturbed for cultural resource study
needs (such as site file searches at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, on-site
surveys, and subsurface testing). Federal involvement (such as funding, permits, and lands) requires compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementation of regulations in 36 CFR 800.

April 2019
Appendix 2-A Engineering and Economic Feasibility for Meeting the HRM Minimum Requirements
2A-3.3 Geographic and Geotechnical Limitations to Construction

Feasibility
A project’s topography and/or proximity to wetlands, sensitive water bodies, shorelines,
riverfront areas, or steep slopes may physically or structurally preclude construction of BMPs
on site within required engineering standards. In situ geotechnical conditions can also limit the
feasibility of constructing BMPs within the right of way (for example, the project is on unstable
slopes, high shrink/swell soils, or karst topography). Refer to Section 4-5 to determine whether
geography or geotechnical limits affect the feasibility of designing stormwater BMPs within the
proposed ROW.
2A-3.4 Hydraulic Limitations to Construction Feasibility

Hydraulic limitations can include the lack of hydraulic head necessary to effectively operate
stormwater control facilities or areas with very shallow water tables, such as floodplains or
seasonal wetlands. Consider alternatives such as spill control devices and frequent cleaning
of road or bridge surfaces with high-efficiency vacuum sweepers in these areas in lieu of
standard treatment BMPs. Consider the following questions when determining the
hydraulic feasibility of a project:
1. Have the conveyance requirements described in the Hydraulics Manual been
satisfied?
2. For bridge projects, is it feasible to convey stormwater to on-land stormwater BMPs
by gravity feed and meet the design spread requirements in Figure 5-4.1 of the
Hydraulics Manual?
2A-3.5 Environmental or Health Risk Limitations to Construction

Feasibility
Areas with intensive historic levels of industrial or commercial activity may have significant
levels of soil, water, or fill contamination, which would prevent highway construction work
from being conducted in a safe manner (as specified in the Washington Industrial Safety and
Health Act or federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations), or may be
the subject of overriding Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), state Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA), or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) regulations. Such significant safety, health, and environmental limitations would
generally preclude construction of stormwater BMPs on a particular site.
Consider the following questions for all sites:
1. Does the proposed stormwater BMP contain soils or materials designated as
Hazardous/Dangerous Waste or require cleanup action as defined by RCRA or MTCA
regulations?
Generally, it is not feasible to construct BMPs in these locations without putting a
worker’s health in jeopardy; the site may release acutely toxic substances to surface
waters during construction and impact groundwater. Infiltration of stormwater may

April 2019
mobilize or accentuate the migration of hazardous material located below the BMP
even if soils at the surface or near the surface are clean or removed.
2. Will construction of stormwater BMPs require removal of well-established riparian
tree canopies or vegetative buffers?
Consider benefits to the environment if trees are retrained to include water storage,
sequester water/pollutants, and shade streams.
3. Will construction of stormwater BMPs require removal of critical habitat for listed
endangered and threatened species?
Removal of critical habitat will, at a minimum, require a Section 7 Consultation and
may result in a take of endangered or threatened species, making the proposed
location not feasible.
4. Is the established or acquired ROW for stormwater BMPs located within a 100-year
flood plain?
Determine whether it is feasible to install stormwater control facilities within the flood
plain.
2A-3.6 Maintenance Limitations to Construction Feasibility

Maintenance is essential to the performance of runoff treatment and flow control BMPs.
Stormwater BMP locations and designs need to be discussed and reviewed with the local
maintenance office prior to finalizing. Maintenance considerations to address during the design
process include: specific site restrictions that prevent access, long-term operation and
maintenance costs, and necessary equipment and training. Complete the Hydraulic Report
Checklist found on the WSDOT HQ Hydraulics website and review it with the area maintenance
office. If no suitable, approved stormwater BMPs can be constructed and maintained,
document the reasons in the EEF evaluation.
2A-3.7 Cost Limitations to Construction Feasibility

Critical factors found to affect stormwater management costs include the location and setting
of projects relative to neighborhoods, streams, and wetlands. In addition, projects with poor
soil conditions or high water tables generally have considerably higher costs for treating
stormwater within the right of way. The PEO should consider all project costs and balance them
to maximize the benefit-to-cost ratio. In some cases, the costs to treat stormwater, relative to
the overall project costs, may seem out of proportion to the benefit. In these cases, the PEO
shall document the costs in the EEF evaluation.

April 2019
CHAPTER 3
Minimum Requirements
Chapter 3 Contents
3-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3-2 Applying the HRM Minimum Requirements ........................................................................... 3-1
Project Thresholds ..................................................................................................... 3-1
Exemptions ................................................................................................................ 3-3
3-3 Minimum Requirements ........................................................................................................ 3-7
Minimum Requirement 1 – Stormwater Planning....................................................... 3-7
3-3.1.1 Objective ................................................................................................... 3-7
3-3.1.2 Applicability ............................................................................................... 3-7
3-3.1.3 Guidelines.................................................................................................. 3-8
Minimum Requirement 2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention ............... 3-8
3-3.2.1 Objective ................................................................................................... 3-9
3-3.2.2 Applicability ............................................................................................... 3-9
3-3.2.3 Guidelines.................................................................................................. 3-9
Minimum Requirement 3 – Source Control of Pollutants .......................................... 3-10
3-3.3.1 Objective ................................................................................................. 3-10
3-3.3.2 Applicability ............................................................................................. 3-10
3-3.3.3 Guidelines................................................................................................ 3-10
Minimum Requirement 4 – Maintaining the Natural Drainage System ..................... 3-11
3-3.4.1 Objective ................................................................................................. 3-11
3-3.4.2 Applicability ............................................................................................. 3-11
3-3.4.3 Guidelines................................................................................................ 3-11
Minimum Requirement 5 – Runoff Treatment .......................................................... 3-12
3-3.5.1 Objective ................................................................................................. 3-12
3-3.5.2 Runoff Treatment Exemptions ................................................................. 3-12
Discharges to underground injection control (UIC) facilities may not
require basic runoff treatment if the vadose zone matrix between the
bottom of the facility and the water table provides adequate treatment
capacity (see Section 4-5.4). ..................................................................... 3-12
3-3.5.3 Applicability ............................................................................................. 3-12
3-3.5.4 Guidelines................................................................................................ 3-13
Minimum Requirement 6 – Flow Control .................................................................. 3-18
Stormwater flow control facilities shall be selected, designed, and
maintained in accordance with the HRM.................................................. 3-18
3-3.6.1 Objective ................................................................................................. 3-18
3-3.6.2 Flow Control Exemptions ......................................................................... 3-18
3-3.6.3 Applicability ............................................................................................. 3-20
3-3.6.4 Guidelines................................................................................................ 3-24

April 2019
Minimum Requirements Chapter 3
Minimum Requirement 7 – Wetlands Protection...................................................... 3-28

3-3.7.1 Objective ................................................................................................. 3-28
3-3.7.2 Applicability ............................................................................................. 3-28
3-3.7.3 Guidelines................................................................................................ 3-28
Minimum Requirement 8 – Incorporating Approved Basin Plans Into Stormwater
Management ........................................................................................................... 3-32
3-3.8.1 Objective ................................................................................................. 3-32
3-3.8.2 Applicability ............................................................................................. 3-32
3-3.8.3 Guidelines................................................................................................ 3-32
Minimum Requirement 9 – Operation and Maintenance.......................................... 3-33
3-3.9.1 Objective ................................................................................................. 3-33
3-3.9.2 Applicability ............................................................................................. 3-33
3-3.9.3 Guidelines................................................................................................ 3-33
3-4 Stormwater Retrofit Guidelines ........................................................................................... 3-34
Stand-Alone Stormwater Retrofit Projects ................................................................ 3-34
Project-Triggered Stormwater Retrofit Projects ........................................................ 3-35
3-4.2.1 Project-Triggered Stormwater Retrofits Statewide ................................... 3-35
3-4.2.2 Project-Triggered Retrofits within the Puget Sound Basin ........................ 3-35
Opportunity-Based Stormwater Retrofits ................................................................. 3-36
3-5 Stormwater Adjustments and Deviations to the HRM .......................................................... 3-37
Adjustments............................................................................................................. 3-37
Deviations ................................................................................................................ 3-37
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Runoff treatment targets and applications for roadway projects. ................................... 3-15
Table 3-2 Basic Treatment receiving water bodies.[1]...................................................................... 3-16
Table 3-3 Criteria for sizing runoff treatment facilities in western Washington............................... 3-17
Table 3-4 Criteria for sizing runoff treatment facilities in eastern Washington. .............................. 3-17
Table 3-5 Flow control exempt surface waters list. ........................................................................ 3-21
Table 3-6 Western Washington flow control criteria. ..................................................................... 3-26
Table 3-7 Eastern Washington flow control criteria. ....................................................................... 3-27
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Minimum Requirement applicability at project level......................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-2 Minimum Requirement applicability at project level (continued)...................................... 3-5
Figure 3-3 Minimum Requirement applicability at TDA level ............................................................. 3-6
Fgure 3-4 Stormwater retrofit process for WSDOT projects within the Puget Sound basin3- .......... 3-36

April 2019
Chapter 3 Minimum Requirements
3-1 Introduction
Note to the designer: It is extremely important to take the time to thoroughly understand the
minimum requirements presented in this chapter when making stormwater design decisions.
A firm grasp of the chapter’s terminology is essential; consult the manual’s Glossary to clarify
the intent and appropriate use of the terms used herein. Direct questions regarding the
minimum requirements and terminology to the Region Hydraulics Engineer (RHE), the HQ
Hydraulics Section, or the HQ Environmental Services Office.
This chapter describes the nine minimum requirements that apply to the planning and design
of stormwater management facilities and best management practices (BMPs) for existing and
new Washington State highways, rest areas, park and ride lots, ferry terminals, and highway
maintenance facilities. Projects following the stormwater management practices in this manual
achieve compliance with federal and state water quality regulations through the presumptive
approach. Alternatively, see Sections 1-2.2, 3-5, and 5-3.6.3 for use the demonstrative approach
to protect water resources.
3-2 Applying the HRM Minimum Requirements

Project Thresholds
This section identifies the thresholds that determine the applicability of the minimum
requirements throughout the state. In some instances, the design criteria is slightly different for
eastern and western Washington due to different climatic, geologic, and hydrogeological
conditions. Regional design criteria are presented in Section 3-3. There may be additional local
requirements for projects based on the exceptions listed in HRM Section 1-2.1.
Note: For the purposes of this manual, the boundary between eastern and western Washington
is the Cascade Crest, except in Klickitat County, where all of Klickitat County follows eastern
Washington stormwater design criteria.
All nonexempt projects (see Section 3-3.2) are required to comply with Minimum Requirement
2. Projects that exceed certain thresholds are required to comply with additional minimum
requirements. Use the flowcharts in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 to determine which minimum
requirements apply at the project level. Use the flowchart in Figure 3-3 to determine which
minimum requirements apply at the TDA level. Review Section 3-3 for detailed information
about each minimum requirement. Consult the Glossary to gain a clear understanding of the
following terms, which are essential for correctly assessing minimum requirement applicability:

April 2019
New impervious surface

< Converted pervious surface
< Pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS)
< Pollution-generating pervious surface (PGPS)
< Land-disturbing activity
< Native vegetation
< Non-road-related projects
< Existing roadway prism
< Project limits
< Replaced impervious surface
< Effective impervious surface
< Noneffective impervious surface
< Effective PGIS
< Noneffective PGIS
< Threshold discharge area (TDA)
< Net-new impervious surface
All projects within WSDOT right of way, including non-WSDOT projects by private developers or
local agencies, shall use the Stormwater Design Documentation Spreadsheet (SDDS)
to document which HRM Minimum Requirements apply to the project and to each threshold
discharge area (TDA), if applicable. The spreadsheet is located at:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/HighwayRunoffManual.htm. An electronic copy of the
SDDS must be sent to the HQ Highway Runoff Program Manager once the hydraulic report has
been approved and has received concurrence from the WSDOT Region Hydraulics Engineer
(RHE) or HQ Hydraulics Section.

April 2019
Exemptions
Unless otherwise indicated in this section the practices described in this section are exempt
from the minimum requirements even if such practices meet the definition of new
development or redevelopment.
< Upgrading by resurfacing WSDOT facilities from BST to ACP or PCCP without
expanding the amount of existing impervious area.1 2
The following project types are subject only to Minimum Requirement 2, Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention when the work only involves:
< Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in-kind material or
materials with similar runoff characteristics.
< Removing and replacing a concrete or asphalt roadway to base course, or subgrade or
lower, without expanding or upgrading the impervious surfaces.
1
This exemption is applicable only to WSDOT maintenance projects; whereas, the “gravel-to-BST” exemption in
Ecology’s stormwater management manuals is only available to local governments. For local governments, upgrades
that involve resurfacing from BST to ACP or PCCP are considered new impervious surfaces and are not
categorically exempt.
2
Exemption applies to WSDOT maintenance projects only. Projects done by contractors will be subject to
Minimum Requirement 2.

April 2019
Step 1 Check whether any exemptions listed in Section 3-2.2 apply.
Step 2 Does the project have 2,000 square feet or more of new, replaced, or new
plus replaced impervious surfaces? No Apply Minimum
Requirement 2.
OR
Does the project have land-disturbing activities of 7,000 square feet or more?
Yes
Apply Minimum Requirements 1, 2, 3, and 4 to new and

replaced impervious surfaces and to the land disturbed.
Step 3 Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces?
OR
No No additional
For western Washington projects, does the project convert ¾ acre or more of
native vegetation to lawn or landscaped area? requirements.
OR
For western Washington projects, does the project convert 2.5 acres or more
of native vegetation to pasture?
Yes
Delineate Threshold Discharge Areas (TDA) for the project. Minimum Requirement 6 applies
to the new impervious surfaces and converted pervious surfaces on the project. Applicability
at the TDA level may change based on triggers in Figure 3-3.
Minimum Requirements 7, 8, and 9 apply to the new impervious surfaces and converted
pervious surfaces on the project.
Step 4 For road/parking lot-related projects (including pavement, shoulders, Minimum

curbs, and sidewalks) adding 5,000 square feet or more of new Requirement 6
impervious surfaces: Do new impervious surfaces add 50% or more to the does not apply to
existing impervious surfaces within the project limits? Nothe replaced
OR impervious
surfaces on the
For non-road-related projects (such as rest areas, maintenance facilities, project.
or ferry terminal buildings): Is the total of new plus replaced impervious
surfaces 5,000 square feet or more, AND does the value of the proposed
improvements—including interior improvements—exceed 50% of the
replacement value of the existing site improvements?
Yes
Minimum Requirement 6 applies to the replaced impervious

surfaces on the project. Applicability at the TDA level may
change based on triggers in Figure 3-3.
Continue to
Minimum Requirements 7, 8, and 9 also apply to the replaced Step 5 in
impervious surfaces on the project. Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-1 Minimum Requirement applicability at project level

April 2019
Step 5 Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of

new pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS)? Minimum Requirement 5 does
No not apply to the new PGIS and
OR converted PGPS for the project.
For western Washington projects, does the project Go to Step 8, Figure 3-3, to
convert more than ¾ acre of native vegetation to assess Minimum Requirement 6
pollution-generation pervious surface (PGPS)? applicability at the TDA level.
Yes
Minimum Requirement 5 applies to the new PGIS and

converted PGPS for the project. Applicability at the
TDA level may change based on triggers in Figure 3-3.
Step 6
For road/parking lot-related projects adding 5,000
square feet or more of new PGIS: Do new PGIS add 50% Minimum Requirement 5 does
or more to the existing PGIS within the project limits? not apply to the replaced PGIS
No for the project.
OR
For non-road-related projects: Is the total of new plus
replaced PGIS 5,000 square feet or more, AND does the
value of the proposed improvements—including interior
improvements—exceed 50% of the replacement value of
the existing site improvements?
Yes
Go to Step 7, Figure 3-3, to

Minimum Requirement 5 applies to the assess Minimum Requirement 5
replaced PGIS for the project. Applicability applicability at the TDA level.
at the TDA level may change based on
triggers in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-2 Minimum Requirement applicability at project level (continued)

April 2019
Step 7 Is the effective PGIS greater than 5,000 square feet in the
TDA? Minimum Requirement 5
OR No does not apply to the
For western Washington, does the TDA convert ¾ acre or effective PGIS and PGPS in
more of native vegetation to PGPS and is there a surface the TDA.
discharge in a natural or constructed conveyance system
from the site?
Yes
Minimum Requirement 5 applies to the
effective PGIS and PGPS in the TDA.
Step 8
Is the effective impervious surface greater than 10,000
square feet in the TDA?
OR
For western Washington, does the TDA convert ¾ acre or Minimum Requirement 6
more of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped area and No does not apply to the
is there a surface discharge in a natural or manmade effective impervious
conveyance system from the site? surfaces and, in western
Washington, converted
OR pervious surfaces in the
For western Washington, through a combination of TDA.
effective impervious surfaces and converted pervious
surfaces, does the particular TDA cause a 0.15 cfs or more
increase in the 100-year recurrence interval flow?
Yes
Minimum Requirement 6 applies to the effective
impervious surfaces and, in western Washington,
converted pervious surfaces in the TDA.
Repeat Step 7 and/or Step 8 for each

Step 9 TDA.
Step 10 Check whether any exemptions listed

in Sections 3-3.5.2 and 3-3.6.2 apply.
Step 11 Continue to Section 3-4 for

Stormwater
Note: For Figure 3-3, Minimum Requirements 1–4 and 7–9 still apply to all TDAs Retrofit
on the project, Analysis.
even though
Minimum Requirements 5 and/or 6 may not apply to each TDA.
Figure 3-3 Minimum Requirement applicability at TDA level

April 2019
3-3 Minimum Requirements

This section describes the minimum requirements for stormwater management at project sites.
Consult Section 3-2 to determine which requirements apply to a project. See Chapter 5 for BMPs
to use in meeting Minimum Requirements 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9, and the Temporary Erosion and
Sediment Control Manual (TESCM) for BMPs to use in meeting Minimum Requirement 2.
Minimum Requirement 1 – Stormwater Planning

Stormwater planning shall consist of Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planning
and Permanent Stormwater Planning.
3-3.1.1 Objective
Stormwater planning documents must collectively demonstrate how stormwater management
will be accomplished both during project construction and in the final, developed condition.
3-3.1.2 Applicability
Minimum Requirement 1 applies to all nonexempt projects (See Section 3-2.2) that meet or
exceed the thresholds described in Figure 3-1.
To meet the objectives of the stormwater planning requirement during construction,
contractors are required to prepare Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
plans for all projects, since all projects have the potential to spill hazardous materials. All
projects that disturb soil must also comply with the 13 Temporary Erosion and Sediment
Control (TESC) elements (see the TESCM) and must apply the appropriate best management
practices (BMPs) presented in the TESCM. WSDOT prepares a TESC plan if a construction
project adds or replaces (removes existing road surface down to base course) more than 2,000
square feet of impervious surface or disturbs more than 7,000 square feet of soil. Projects that
disturb fewer than 7,000 square feet of soil must address erosion control and the 13 TESC
elements; however, a stand-alone TESC plan is optional and plan sheets are not required.
To meet the objectives of the stormwater planning requirement for the final, developed
condition, all projects that exceed the thresholds for HRM minimum requirements (especially
minimum requirement 5 or 6) must prepare a Hydraulic Report and follows guidelines in the
HRM, Hydraulics Manual, and Maintenance Manual. The Hydraulic Report provides a complete
record of the engineering justification for all drainage modifications and is prepared for all
major and minor hydraulic projects. As noted in the Hydraulics Manual, the Hydraulic Report
must contain detailed descriptions of the following items:
< Existing and developed site hydrology
< Flow control and runoff treatment BMPs
< Conveyance system analysis and design
< Wetland hydrology analysis, if applicable
< Downstream analysis

April 2019
3-3.1.3 Guidelines
Multiple documents are used to fulfill the objective of this requirement, since addressing
stormwater management needs is thoroughly integrated into WSDOT’s design, construction,
and maintenance programs. WSDOT’s construction stormwater pollution prevention planning
components consist of SPCC plans and TESC plans. WSDOT’s permanent stormwater planning
components include Hydraulic Reports and aspects of the HRM, Hydraulics Manual, and
Maintenance Manual.
Instructions on how to prepare SPCC and TESC plans are provided in Minimum Requirement 2
and in the TESCM. Both the SPCC and TESC plans must be kept on site or within reasonable
access of the site during construction and may require updates with changing site conditions.
Instructions on how to prepare Hydraulics Reports are provided in Chapter 1 of the Hydraulics
Manual.
Stormwater runoff treatment and flow control BMP maintenance criteria for each BMP in
Chapter 5 are included in Section 5-5. Additional standards for maintaining stormwater BMPs
are found in the Regional Road Maintenance/Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines
(www.wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance/roadside/esa.htm). The criteria and guidelines are designed
to ensure all BMPs function at design performance levels and that the maintenance activities
themselves are protective of water quality and its beneficial uses.
Minimum Requirement 2 – Construction Stormwater

Pollution Prevention
WSDOT’s construction stormwater pollution prevention (SWPPP) components consist of
1. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) planning
2. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) planning
A TESC plan must address the following elements, which are the same as the SWPPP elements
outlined in Special Condition S9 of Ecology’s 2017 Construction Stormwater General Permit and
in the TESCM:
< Element 1: Mark clearing limits
< Element 2: Establish Construction Access
< Element 3: Control Flow Rates
< Element 4: Install Sediment Controls
< Element 5: Stabilize Soils
< Element 6: Protect Slopes
< Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets
< Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets
< Element 9: Control Pollutants
< Element 10: Control Dewatering
< Element 11: Maintain BMPs

April 2019
< Element 12: Manage the Project

< Element 13: Protect Low-Impact Development Facilities
The SPCC plan must contain the following components which further address Element 9:
Control Pollutants listed above:
< Site information and project description
< Spill prevention and containment
< Spill response
< Material and equipment requirements
< Reporting information
< Program management
< Plans to contain preexisting contamination, if necessary
Detailed requirements for each of the Elements above are provided in the TESCM.
The TESC and SPCC plans must (1) demonstrate compliance with all of those detailed
requirements, or (2) when site conditions warrant the exemption of an element(s), clearly
document in the narrative why a requirement does not apply to the project. The TESC and SPCC
plans shall be implemented beginning with initial land disturbance and until final stabilization.
Sediment and erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained in TESCM.
3-3.2.1 Objective
The objective of construction stormwater pollution prevention is to ensure construction
projects do not impair water quality by allowing sediment to discharge from the site or allowing
pollutant spills. The emphasis of erosion control is to prevent the erosion process from starting
by preserving native vegetation, limiting the amount of bare ground, and protecting slopes.
All nonexempt projects must address Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention per
Standard Specification 1.07.15(1). A SPCC plan is required on all projects to prevent and
minimize spills that may contaminate soil or nearby waters of the state. All projects that disturb
7,000 square feet or more of land or add 2,000 square feet or more of new, replaced, or new
plus replaced impervious surface must prepare a TESC plan in addition to a SPCC plan.
3-3.2.3 Guidelines
Instructions on how to prepare SPCC and TESC plans are provided in the TESCM and Standard
Specification 1-07.15(1).

April 2019
Minimum Requirement 3 – Source Control of Pollutants

All known, available, and reasonable source control BMPs must be applied and must be
selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with this manual.
3-3.3.1 Objective
The intention of source control is to prevent pollutants from coming into contact and mixing
with stormwater. In many cases, it is more cost-effective to apply source control than to
remove pollutants after they have mixed with runoff. This is certainly the case for erosion
control and spill prevention during the construction phase.
Minimum Requirement 3 applies to all nonexempt projects that meet or exceed the thresholds
described in Figure 3-1. Source control (erosion control and spill prevention) applies to all
projects during the construction phase per Minimum Requirement 2. Post construction source
controls are employed programmatically via WSDOT’s maintenance program. In instances
where structural source control BMPs may not be sufficient, consult with the environmental
support staff of the HQ Maintenance and Operations Office to explore operational source
control BMP options that may be available to meet regulatory requirements.
Certain types of activities and facilities may require source control BMPs. Determine whether
there are pollutant-generating activities or facilities in the project that warrant source controls.
Source control BMPs for the activities listed in Section 5-2.1 must be specified to reduce
pollutants. For detailed descriptions of the source control BMPs, see Chapter 2 of Volume IV
of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) or
Chapter 8 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW).
Any deviations from the source control BMPs listed in either the SWMMWW or the SWMMEW
must provide equivalent pollution source control benefits. The hydraulic report must include
documentation for why the deviation is considered equivalent. Section 5-3.6.3 describes the
process for seeking approval of such deviations. The project may have additional source control
responsibilities per the exceptions listed in HRM 1-2.1.
3-3.3.3 Guidelines
Source control BMPs include operational and structural BMPs:
< Operational BMPs are nonstructural practices that prevent (or reduce) pollutants from
entering stormwater. Examples include preventative maintenance procedures; spill
prevention and cleanup; and inspection of potential pollutant sources.
< Structural BMPs are physical, structural, or mechanical devices or facilities intended
to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. Examples include installation of
vegetation for temporary and permanent erosion control; putting roofs over outside
storage areas; and putting berms around potential pollutant source areas to prevent
both stormwater run-on and pollutant run-off.

April 2019
Many source control BMPs combine operational and structural characteristics. A construction
phase example is slope protection using various types of covers: temporary covers (structural)
and the active inspection and maintenance needed for effective use of the covers (operational).
A post construction phase example is street sweeping: a sweeper (mechanical) and the
sweeping schedule and procedures for its use (operational) collectively support the BMP.
For criteria on the design of construction-related source control BMPs, see the TESCM. For
criteria on the design of source control BMPs for the post construction phase, see Section 5-2.1.
Minimum Requirement 4 – Maintaining the Natural

Drainage System
To the maximum extent practicable, natural drainage patterns must be maintained and
discharges from the site must occur at the natural discharge locations. The manner by which
runoff is discharged must not cause downstream erosion in receiving waters and downgradient
properties. Discharge locations may require dispersal systems and/or energy-dissipation BMPs
per Hydraulics Manual guidelines.
3-3.4.1 Objective
The intent of maintaining the natural drainage system is to (1) preserve and utilize natural
drainage systems to the fullest extent because of the multiple benefits such systems provide,
and (2) prevent erosion at, and downstream of, the discharge location.
described in Figure 3-1, to the maximum extent practicable.
3-3.4.3 Guidelines
When projects affect subsurface and/or surface water drainage, use strategies that minimize
impacts and maintain hydrologic continuity. For example, road cuts on hill slopes or roads
bisecting wetlands or ephemeral streams can affect subsurface water drainage. Ditching,
channel straightening, channel lining, channel obliteration, and roads that bisect wetlands or
perennial streams change surface water drainage and stream channel processes. Use the best
available design practices to maintain hydrologic function and drainage patterns based on site
geology, hydrology, and topography.
If flows for a given discharge location are not channeled in the existing (preproject) condition,
runoff concentrated by the proposed project must be discharged overland through a flow
spreader (Section 5-4.3.5). If the flow velocity is very high and could cause erosion, an energy
dissipater may also be needed per Section 5-4.3.6
In some instances, a diversion of flow from the existing (preproject) TDA may be beneficial to
the downstream properties or receiving water bodies. Examples of where the diversion of flows
may be warranted include (1) areas where preproject drainage conditions are contributing to
active erosion of a stream channel in a heavily impervious basin, and (2) areas where preproject

April 2019
drainage patterns are exacerbating flooding of downstream properties. If it is determined that a

diversion of flow from the natural discharge location may be warranted, contact the RHE or HQ
Hydraulics staff. The diversion of flow from one TDA to another would be a deviation from
Minimum Requirement 4 and would follow the guidelines in Section 3-5.
Minimum Requirement 5 – Runoff Treatment

Stormwater runoff treatment facilities shall be selected, designed, and maintained in
accordance with the HRM.
3-3.5.1 Objective
The purpose of runoff treatment is to reduce pollutant loads and concentrations in stormwater
runoff using physical, biological, and chemical removal mechanisms to maintain or enhance
beneficial uses of receiving waters. When site conditions are appropriate, infiltration can
potentially be the most effective BMP for runoff treatment.
3-3.5.2 Runoff Treatment Exemptions

Any of the runoff treatment exemptions below may be negated by requirements set forth
in a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or Ecology-approved Basin Plan.
3-3.5.3 Discharges to underground injection control (UIC) facilities may

not require basic runoff treatment if the vadose zone matrix between the
bottom of the facility and the water table provides adequate treatment
capacity (see Section 4-5.4). Applicability3
described in Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3. Even if the threshold is not triggered, runoff from the
applicable pollution-generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) and pollution-generating pervious
surfaces (PGPS) must be dispersed and infiltrated to adjacent pervious areas when practicable.
The extension of the roadway edge and the paving of gravel shoulders and lanes are new PGIS.
Existing natural dispersion BMPs (already having a WSDOT Feature Number) must be identified
along the project as a part of determining whether the particular TDA exceeds thresholds in
Figure 3-3, Step 7. Those effective PGIS areas that are flowing to an existing natural dispersion
BMP can be subtracted as noneffective PGIS.
Equivalent area treatment is allowable for PGIS areas that are within the same TDA. The
equivalent PGIS area must have an ADT that is greater than or equal to the original PGIS area.
While the equivalent area will receive treatment, the new or expanded discharge must not
cause a violation of surface water quality standards. Additional information on equivalent area
treatment is provided in Section 4-3.5.4.
3
Consult the Glossary for the following key terms: converted pervious surface, impervious surface, new PGIS,
PGPS, project limits, replaced impervious surface, effective PGIS, noneffective PGIS, and threshold discharge
area (TDA).

April 2019
Projects not triggering the runoff treatment minimum requirement still have the option to
provide runoff treatment. Any treatment provided in this case would be considered an
opportunity-based stormwater retrofit. Retrofits should be considered especially if a high
stormwater retrofit priority is identified within the project limits through the I-4 Stormwater
Retrofit program. The decision to retrofit is made by the PEO in collaboration with Region and
Headquarters Hydraulics, Region Program Management, and the HQ Environmental Services
Office. Additional information on opportunity-based stormwater retrofit is provided in Section
3-4.3.
3-3.5.4 Guidelines
Runoff treatment design involves the following three steps:
1. Determine the specific runoff treatment requirements (basic treatment, enhanced
treatment, oil control, and/or phosphorus control). Refer to Treatment Targets
below.
2. Choose the method(s) of runoff treatment that will best meet the treatment
requirements, taking into account the constraints/opportunities presented by the
project’s context and operation and maintenance. Refer to Sections 2-4, 4-3.1, 5-3.5,
and 5-5.
3. Design runoff treatment facilities based on the sizing criteria. Refer to Criteria for
Sizing Runoff Treatment Facilities below and Section 5-4.1.
WSDOT’s stormwater management design philosophy (see Section 2-3.2) seeks to mimic
natural hydrology, where feasible, through the dispersion and infiltration of runoff using low-
impact development (LID) practices. The extent to which runoff flow rates and volumes can be
(or remain) dispersed and then infiltrated determines the types and sizing of runoff treatment
options available. This aspect of runoff treatment planning and design is discussed in detail in
Sections 2-3.2, 4-3.5, 5-2, and 5-3.
Existing low class wetlands may be considered for runoff treatment if the wetlands meet the
criteria for hydrologic modification (see Minimum Requirement 6 and Section 4-6 on wetland
hydroperiods) and Minimum Requirement 7.
Sections 4-3 (western Washington) and 4-4 (eastern Washington) provide design criteria for
sizing runoff treatment facilities, including a description of how to conduct the hydrological
analysis to derive treatment volumes and flow rates for treatment facilities. Section 5-4
provides direction on how to design the treatment facilities chosen for the project.

April 2019
Treatment Targets
There are four runoff treatment targets: Basic Treatment (total suspended solids removal),
Enhanced Treatment (dissolved metals removal), Oil Control, and Phosphorus Control. Table 3-1
describes applicable treatment targets and performance goals for roadway projects. For
nonroadway applications, refer to Ecology’s SWMMEW or SWMMWW. Table 3-2 identifies
receiving waters that only require Basic Treatment for direct discharges.
Section 5-3.6 provides information on alternative BMP options available to meet each of the
four treatment targets. Per Figure 5-3, the PEO must exhaust all approved runoff treatment
BMP options before using an alternative BMP option from Section 5-3.6. Treatment facilities,
designed in accordance with the design criteria presented in this manual, are presumed to
meet the applicable performance goals.

April 2019
Table 3-1 Runoff treatment targets and applications for roadway projects.
Treatment Application Performance Goal

Target
Basic All project TDAs where runoff treatment threshold is met or 80% removal of total
Treatment exceeded. Table 3 2 identifies receiving waters that only require Basic suspended solids (TSS)
Treatment for direct discharges.
Enhanced Same as for Basic Treatment AND does not discharge to Basic Provide a higher rate
Treatment Treatment receiving water body (listed in Table 3-2) AND of removal of dissolved
(dissolved 1. Roadways within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs): metals than Basic
metals) • Fully controlled or partially controlled limited access Treatment facilities for
highways with a design year ADT[1] ³ 15,000 OR influent concentrations
• All other roadways with a design year ADT[1] ³ 7,500 OR ranging from 0.005 to
2. Roadways outside of UGAs: 0.02 mg/L for dissolved
• Roads with a design year ADT ³ 15,000 copper and 0.02-0.3
mg/L for dissolved zinc
3. Required by an Ecology-approved Basin Plan or TMDL, as
described in Sections 2-4.2 and 2-4.7.
Oil Control Same as for Basic Treatment AND No ongoing or

recurring visible sheen
1. There is an intersection with existing ADTs where either ³15,000 and 24-hr average total
vehicles (ADT) must stop to cross a roadway with ³25,000 petroleum
vehicles (ADT) or vice versa[2] excluding projects proposing hydrocarbon
primarily pedestrian or bicycle improvements OR concentration of not
2. Rest areas with an expected trip end count greater than or greater than 10 mg/L
equal to 300 vehicles per day[3] OR with a maximum of 15
mg/L for a discrete
3. Maintenance facilities that park, store, or maintain 25 or more (grab) sample
vehicles (trucks or heavy equipment) that exceed 10 tons gross
weight each[3] OR
4. Eastern Washington roadways with ADT >30,000.
Phosphorus Same as for Basic Treatment AND the project is located in a 50% removal of total
Control designated area requiring phosphorus control as prescribed through phosphorus (TP) for
an Ecology-approved Basin Plan or TMDL.[4] influent concentrations
ranging from 0.1 to 0.5
mg/L TP
[1] The design year ADT is determined using Chapter 1103 of the WSDOT Design Manual.
[2] Treatment is required for these high-use intersections for lanes where vehicles accumulate during the signal
cycle, including through, left-turn lanes, and right-turn lanes. If no turn pocket exists, the treatable area must
begin at a distance equal to three car lengths from the stop line. If runoff from the intersection drains to
more than two collection areas that do not combine within the intersection, treatment may be limited to any
two of the collection areas where the cars stop. See HRM FAQ for additional information.
[3] For rest areas and maintenance facilities, oil control BMPs are required for the PGIS subject to the oil control
threshold activities listed in Table 3-1. All-day parking areas do not require oil control. Oil Control BMPs must
be sized to treat all water directed to them.[4] Contact the RHE or environmental staff to determine
whether phosphorus control is required for a project.

April 2019
Table 3-2 Basic Treatment receiving water bodies.[1]

1. All saltwater bodies
2. Rivers (only Basic Treatment required downstream of the confluence of the two water bodies)
Baker (Anderson Creek) Queets (Clearwater River)
Bogachiel (Bear Creek) Quillayute (Bogachiel River)
Cascade (Marblemount) Quinault (Lake Quinault)
Chehalis (Bunker Creek) Sauk (Clear Creek)
Clearwater (Town of Clearwater) Satsop (Middle and East Fork confluence)
Columbia (Canadian Border) Similkameen
Cowlitz (Skate Creek) Skagit (Cascade River)
Elwha (Lake Mills) Skokomish (Vance Creek)
Green (Howard Hanson Dam) Skykomish (Beckler River)
Grand Ronde Snake
Hoh (South Fork Hoh River) Snohomish (Snoqualmie River)
Humptulips (West and East Fork confluence) Snoqualmie (Middle and North Fork confluence)
Kalama (Italian Creek) Sol Duc (Beaver Creek)
Kettle Spokane
Klickitat Stillaguamish (North and South Fork confluence)
Lewis (Swift Reservoir) North Fork Stillaguamish (Boulder River)
Methow South Fork Stillaguamish (Canyon Creek)
Moses Suiattle (Darrington)
Muddy (Clear Creek) Tilton (Bear Canyon Creek)
Naches Toutle (North and South Fork confluence)
Nisqually (Alder Lake) North Fork Toutle (Green River)
Nooksack (Glacier Creek) Washougal (Washougal)
North River (Raymond) White (Greenwater River)
South Fork Nooksack (Hutchinson Creek) Wenatchee
Okanogan Wind (Carson)
Pend Oreille Wynoochee (Wishkah River Road Bridge)
Puyallup (Carbon River) Yakima
3. Streams with a Strahler order of 4 or higher (as determined using 1:24,000 scale maps to delineate stream
order) receiving discharges from roadway outside UGAs with ADT <30,000
4. Non-fish-bearing streams tributary to Basic Treatment receiving waters
5. Lakes (county location)
Banks (Grant) Silver (Cowlitz)
Chelan (Chelan) Whatcom (Whatcom)
Moses (Grant) Washington (King)
Potholes Reservoir (Grant) Union (King)
Sammamish (King)
6. Discharges to groundwater via rule-authorized UIC facilities or surface infiltration[2]
[1] These are receiving waters not requiring Enhanced Treatment for direct discharges (or, indirectly through a
municipal storm sewer system). The initial criteria for this list are rivers whose mean annual flow exceeds
1,000 cubic feet per second and lakes whose surface area exceeds 300 acres. Local governments may petition
Ecology for the addition of waters to this list, but waters should have sufficient background dilution capacity
to accommodate dissolved metals additions from build-out conditions in the watershed under the latest
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoning regulations.
[2] Contact the RHE or environmental staff to determine whether an underground injection control (UIC) facility
is authorized by the rules under the UIC program (WAC 173-218). In western Washington, surface infiltration
must meet the site suitability criteria (SSC) 7 Soil Physical and Chemical Suitability for Treatment when within
¼ mile of surface waters that require the application of Enhanced Treatment. In certain situations, Ecology
may approve surface infiltration that would not need enhanced runoff treatment on a case-by-case basis.

April 2019
Criteria for Sizing Runoff Treatment Facilities

Two sets of criteria exist for sizing runoff treatment facilities—one for western Washington
(Table 3-3) and one for eastern Washington (Table 3-4). (See Sections 4-3.1 and 4-4.1 for
a detailed discussion of on-line and off-line BMPs.)
Table 3-3 Criteria for sizing runoff treatment facilities in western Washington.
Facility Type Criteria Model

Flow-based: upstream of Size treatment facility or facilities so that 91% of the Approved continuous
flow control facility annual average runoff will receive treatment at or below simulation model using
(on-line and off-line) the design loading criteria, under postdeveloped 15-minute time steps
conditions for each TDA. If the flow rate is split upstream
of the treatment facility, use the off-line flow rates.
Flow-based: downstream Size treatment facility or facilities using the full 2-year Approved continuous
of flow control facility release rate from the detention facility, under simulation model using
postdeveloped conditions for each TDA. 15-minute time steps
Volume-based (on-line) Wetpool – Size the wetpool to store the 91st percentile, Approved continuous
24-hour runoff volume as calculated by MGSFlood. simulation model with
Other volume-based infiltration and filtration facilities – 15-minute time steps
Size the facility to treat 91% of the estimated runoff file
for the postdeveloped condition.
Table 3-4 Criteria for sizing runoff treatment facilities in eastern Washington.

Volume-based Size facility using the runoff volume Single-event model (SCS or SBUH)
predicted for the 6-month, long-
Climatic Regions 1–4 Regional Storm; OR
duration* storm event under
Type 1A for Climatic Regions 2 & 3
postdeveloped conditions.
(10-minute time step)
Flow-based: Size facility using the peak flow rate Single-event model (SCS or SBUH)
upstream of predicted for the 6-month, short-
Short-duration storm (5-minute time step)
detention/retention duration storm under postdeveloped
facility conditions.
Flow-based: Size facility using the full 2-year release Single-event model (SCS or SBUH)
downstream of rate from the detention facility, under
Short-duration storm OR the appropriate
detention facility postdeveloped conditions.
long-duration storm depending on the
Climate Region, whichever produces the
greatest flow
* For more information on long-duration and short-duration storms, see Section 4-4.7.
If the BMP receives runoff from areas other than the effective PGIS requires treatment) cannot
be separated and flow to the BMP, treatment facilities must be sized to treat this additional
runoff.

April 2019
Minimum Requirement 6 – Flow Control

3-3.6.1 Stormwater flow control facilities shall be selected, designed, and
maintained in accordance with the HRM. Objective
The objective of flow control is to prevent increases in the stream channel erosion rates beyond
those characteristic of natural or reestablished conditions. The objective is also to prevent
cumulative future impacts from increased stormwater runoff volumes and flow rates on
streams. Wherever possible, dispersion and infiltration are the preferred methods of flow
control. Meeting flow control requirements may also be achieved through regional detention
facilities.
3-3.6.2 Flow Control Exemptions

Regardless of whether an exemption applies, TDAs need to take advantage of on-site
opportunities to disperse and infiltrate storm runoff to the greatest extent feasible.
The following TDA discharges are exempt from flow control requirements:
1. A TDA is able to fully disperse stormwater without discharging runoff either directly
or indirectly through a conveyance system to surface waters per the Dispersion
BMP guidelines in Section 5-2.2.2.
2. TDAs discharging stormwater directly or indirectly through a conveyance system into
any of the flow control exempt surface water bodies shown in Table 3-5 while also
meeting all of the additional requirements for direct discharges (listed below).
3. TDAs discharging stormwater from over-the-water structures such as bridges, docks,
and piers in or over fresh water are exempt up to the 2-year flood plain elevation;
OR that portion of an over-the-water structure that is over the ordinary high water
mark AND where it is not feasible to provide flow control using equivalent area for
the required amount of effective impervious area somewhere else in the same TDA
or another TDA in the project. If it is feasible to provide flow control for an
equivalent area, then this flow control exemption is not valid for the TDA. See
Appendix 2A to determine feasibility.
4. Portions of a roadway that cut through the 2-year flood plain elevation AND where it
is not feasible to provide flow control using equivalent area for the required
amount of effective impervious area somewhere else in the same TDA or another TDA
in the project. If it is feasible to provide flow control for an equivalent area, then this
flow control exemption is not valid for the TDA. See Appendix 2A to determine
feasibility.
5. TDAs discharging stormwater directly or indirectly through a conveyance system into
a wetland. However, flow control may still be required to maintain wetland hydrology
(depth/duration of inundation) per Minimum Requirement 7.

April 2019
Any of the exempted areas must meet the following requirements:

< Direct discharge to the exempt receiving water does not result in the diversion of
drainage area from perennial streams classified as Types 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the State of
Washington Interim Water Typing System; or Types “S,” “F,” or “Np” in the Permanent
Water Typing System; or from any Category I, II, or III wetland; AND
< Flow-splitting devices or drainage BMPs are applied to route natural runoff volumes
from the TDA to any downstream Type 5 stream or Category IV wetland:
• Design of flow-splitting devices or drainage BMPs will be based on continuous
hydrologic modeling analysis (western Washington only). The design will ensure flows
delivered to Type 5 stream reaches will approximate, but in no case exceed, durations
ranging from 50% of the 2-year to the 50-year peak flow.
• Flow-splitting devices or drainage BMPs that deliver flow to category IV wetlands will
also be designed using continuous hydrologic modeling to preserve preproject wetland
hydrologic conditions unless specifically waived or exempted by regulatory agencies
with permitting jurisdiction; AND
< The TDA must be drained by a conveyance system that is comprised entirely of
constructed conveyance elements (such as pipes, ditches, or drainage channels) that
extend to the ordinary high water mark of the exempt receiving water, unless, in order
to avoid construction activities in sensitive areas, flows are properly dispersed before
reaching the buffer zone of the sensitive or critical area; AND
< The conveyance system between the TDA and the exempt receiving water must have
a hydraulic capacity sufficient to convey discharges under future build-out conditions
(under current zoning) from all contributing areas to the TDA, if applicable (see the
Utilities Manual, Section 120.05, for storm drainage requirements), from which runoff
is collected; AND
< Any erodible elements of the constructed conveyance system must be adequately
stabilized to prevent erosion under the conditions listed above
The following additional exemptions (or partial exemptions) are available in eastern
Washington:
1. A site with less than 10-inch average annual rainfall that discharges to a seasonal
stream that is not connected via surface flow to a nonexempt surface water by
runoff generated during the 2-year regional storm for Climatic Regions 1–4 OR
during the 2-year Type 1A storm for Climatic Regions 2 and 3.
2. Discharges to a stream that flows only during runoff-producing events. The runoff
carried by the stream following the 2-year regional storm in Climatic Regions 1–4 OR
during the 2-year Type 1A storm for Climatic Regions 2 and 3, must not discharge via
surface flow to a nonexempt surface water. The stream may carry runoff during an
average annual snowmelt event, but must not have a period of base flow during
a year of normal precipitation.
3. Discharges to stream reaches consisting primarily of irrigation return flows and
not providing habitat for fish spawning and rearing.

April 2019
To seek exemptions in additional geographic areas, the PEO should submit a DAT proposal for
consideration. Such a petition must justify the proposed exemption based on a hydrologic
analysis demonstrating that the potential stormwater runoff from the exempted area will not
significantly increase the erosion forces on the stream channel, nor have near-field impacts.
Contact the RHE to determine the feasibility of potential exemption candidates.
The DAT proposal may consider diversions of flow from perennial streams and from wetlands if
significant existing (preproject) flooding, stream stability, water quality, or aquatic habitat
problems would be solved or significantly mitigated by bypassing stormwater runoff, rather
than providing stormwater detention and discharge to natural drainage features. Bypassing is
not an alternative to applicable flow control or treatment if the flooding, stream stability, water
quality, or habitat problem to be solved would be caused by the project. In addition, ensure
the DAT proposal does not exacerbate other water quality/quantity problems such as
inadequate low flows or inadequate wetland water elevations.
The PEO must document the existing problems and their solutions or mitigation as a result of
the direct discharge after review of any available drainage reports, Basin Plans (see Minimum
Requirement #8), or other relevant literature. The restrictions in this minimum requirement on
conveyance systems that transfer water to exempt receiving waters are applicable in these
situations. All regulatory authorities with permitting jurisdiction must be in support of the DAT
proposal for the flow control exemption and/or movement of flows between areas on the
project.
Additional streams in eastern Washington may be exempt by applying the following criteria:
< Any river or stream that is Strahler fifth order or greater as determined from a
1:24,000 scale map; OR
< Any river or stream that is Strahler fourth order or greater as determined from a
1:100,000 or larger scale map.
3-3.6.3 Applicability4
described in Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 and discharge stormwater directly or indirectly through a
conveyance system to a surface freshwater body. The threshold for triggering the flow control
requirement takes into account the project’s effective impervious surfaces and converted
pervious surfaces.
Application of the “net-new impervious surface” concept only applies to Minimum
Requirement 6 at the TDA level (Figure 3-3, Step 8). Application of the concept does not extend
to any other minimum requirement. When applying the net-new impervious approach, the
pavement permanently removed by the project needs to be reverted to a pervious condition
per the guidelines in Section 4-3.5.3.
4
Consult the Glossary for the following key terms: converted pervious surface, new impervious surfaces, effective
impervious surface, net-new impervious surface, project limits, replaced impervious surface, and threshold
discharge area (TDA).

April 2019
Table 3-5 Flow control exempt surface waters list.

Water Body Upstream Point/Reach for Exemption (if applicable)
Alder Lake
Asotin Creek Downstream of confluence with George Creek
Baker Lake
Baker River Baker River/Baker Lake downstream of confluence with Noisy Creek
Banks Lake
Bogachiel River 0.4 miles downstream of Dowans Creek
Bumping Lake
Bumping River Downstream of confluence with American River
Calawah River Downstream of confluence with South Fork Calawah River
Capital Lake/Deschutes River Downstream of Tumwater Falls
Carbon River Downstream of confluence with South Prairie Creek
Cascade River Downstream of Found Creek
Cedar River Downstream of confluence with Taylor Creek
Chehalis River 1,500 feet downstream of confluence with Stowe Creek
Chehalis River, South Fork 1,000 feet upstream of confluence with Lake Creek
Cispus River Downstream of confluence with Cat Creek
Clearwater River Downstream of confluence with Christmas Creek
Cle Elum River Downstream of Cle Elum Lake
Coal Creek Slough Boundary of Consolidated Diking and Irrigation District #1 to
confluence with the Columbia River
Columbia River Downstream of Canadian border
Columbia River Reservoirs
Colville River Downstream of confluence with Chewelah Creek
Conconully Reservoir
Consolidated Diking and Irrigations Waters that lie within the area bounded by the Columbia River on the
District #1 south, the Cowlitz River on the east, Ditch No. 10 to the west, and
Ditch No. 6 to the north.
Consolidated Diking and Irrigation Ditches served by these pump stations: Tam O’Shanter #1 and #2,
District #3 Coweeman, Baker Way, Elk’s
Coweman River Downstream of confluence with Gobble Creek
Cowlitz River Downstream of confluence of Ohanapecosh River and Clear Fork
Cowlitz River
Crescent Lake
Dickey River Downstream of confluence with Coal Creek
Dosewallips River Downstream of confluence with Rocky Brook
Dungeness River, main channels Downstream of confluence with Gray Wolf River
Duwamish/Green River Downstream of River Mile 6 (S. Boeing Access Road)
Elwha River Downstream of confluence with Goldie River
Erdahl Ditch in Fife Downstream of pump station
First Creek in Tacoma
Grande Ronde River Entire reach from the Oregon to Idaho border
Grays River Downstream of confluence with Hull Creek
Green River (WRIA 26 – Cowlitz) 3.5 miles upstream of Devils Creek
Hoh River 1.2 miles downstream of Jackson Creek
Humptulips River Downstream of confluence with West and East Forks
Johns Creek Downstream of Interstate-405 East Right of way
Kalama River 2.0 miles downstream of Jacks Creek
Kettle River Downstream of confluence with Boulder Creek
Klickitat River Downstream of confluence with West Fork

April 2019

Lacamas Lake
Latah Creek (formerly Hangman Creek) Downstream of confluence with Rock Creek (in Spokane County)
Lake Chelan
Lake Cle Elum
Lake Cushman
Lake Kachess
Lake Keechelus
Lake Quinault
Lake River (Clark County)
Lake Shannon
Lake Sammamish
Lake Union & Union Bay King County
Lake Wenatchee
Lake Washington, Montlake Cut, Ship
Canal, & Salmon Bay
Lake Whatcom
Lewis River Downstream of confluence with Quartz Creek
Lewis River, East Fork Downstream of confluence with Big Tree Creek
Lightning Creek Downstream of confluence with Three Fools Creek
Little Spokane River Downstream of confluence with Deadman Creek
Little White Salmon River Downstream of confluence with Lava Creek
Lower Crab Creek Entire reach
Mayfield Lake
Mercer Slough
Methow River Downstream of confluence with Early Winters Creek
Moses Lake
Muddy River Downstream of confluence with Clear Creek
Naches River Downstream of confluence with Bumping River
Naselle River Downstream of confluence with Johnson Creek
Newaukum River Downstream of confluence with South Fork Newaukum River
Nisqually River Downstream of confluence with Big Creek
Nooksack River Downstream of confluence of North and Middle Forks
Nooksack River, North Fork Downstream of confluence with Glacier Creek, at USGS gage
12205000
Nooksack River, South Fork 0.1 miles upstream of confluence with Skookum Creek
North River Downstream of confluence with Vesta Creek
Ohanapecosh River Downstream of confluence with Summit Creek
Okanogan River Downstream of Canadian border
Osoyoos Lake
Pacific Ocean
Palouse River Downstream of confluence with South Fork Palouse River
Pend Oreille River Idaho to Canadian border
Pend Oreille River Reservoirs
Pothole Reservoir
Puget Sound
Puyallup River Half-mile downstream of confluence with Kellog Creek
Queets River Downstream of confluence with Tshletshy Creek
Quillayute River Downstream of Bogachiel River
Quinault River Downstream of confluence with North Fork Quinault River
Riffe Lake
Rimrock Lake

April 2019

Rock Creek In Whitman County, downstream of confluence with Cottonwood
Creek
Round Lake
Ruby Creek Ruby Creek at State Route 20 crossing downstream of Granite and
Canyon Creeks
Sammamish River Downstream of Lake Sammamish
Satsop River Downstream of confluence of Middle and East Forks
Satsop River, East Fork Downstream of confluence with Decker Creek
Sauk River Downstream of confluence of South Fork and North Fork
Sauk River, North Fork North Fork Sauk River at Bedal Campground
Silver Lake Cowlitz County
Similkameen River Downstream of Canadian border
Skagit River Downstream of Canadian border
Skokomish River Downstream of confluence of North and South Forks
Skokomish River, South Fork Downstream of confluence with Vance Creek
Skokomish River, North Fork Downstream of confluence with McTaggert Creek
Skookumchuck River 1 mile upstream of Bucoda at State Route 507, milepost 11.0
Skykomish River Downstream of South Fork
Skykomish River, South Fork Downstream of confluence of Tye and Foss Rivers
Snake River Entire reach along Idaho border to the Columbia River
Snake River Reservoirs
Snohomish River Downstream of confluence of Snoqualmie and Skykomish Rivers
Snohomish River Estuary
Snoqualmie River Downstream of confluence of the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie River, Middle Fork Downstream of confluence with Rainy Creek
Sol Duc River Downstream of confluence of North and South Fork Soleduck River
Spokane River Downstream of Idaho border
Spokane River Reservoirs
Stillaguamish River Downstream of confluence of North and South Forks
Stillaguamish River, North Fork 7.7 highway miles west of Darrington on State Route 530,
downstream of confluence with French Creek
Stillaguamish River, South Fork Downstream of confluence of Cranberry Creek and South Fork
Suiattle River Downstream of confluence with Milk Creek
Sultan River 0.4 miles upstream of State Route 2
Swift Creek Reservoir
Teanaway River Downstream of confluence of North and West Forks
Thunder Creek Downstream of confluence with Neve Creek
Tieton River Downstream of Rimrock Lake
Tilton River Downstream of confluence with North Fork Tilton River
Toppenish Creek Downstream of confluence with Wanity Slough
Touchet River Downstream of confluence with Patit Creek
Toutle River North and South Fork confluence
Toutle River, North Fork Downstream of confluence with Hoffstadt Creek
Toutle River, South Fork Downstream of confluence with Thirteen Creek
Tucannon River Downstream of confluence with Pataha Creek
Union Bay
Vancouver Lake
Walla Walla River Downstream of confluence with Mill Creek
Wenatchee River Downstream of confluence with Icicle Creek
White River Downstream of confluence with Huckleberry Creek
White Salmon River 0.15 miles upstream of confluence with Trout Lake Creek

April 2019

Willapa River Downstream of confluence with Mill Creek
Wind River Downstream of confluence with Cold Creek
Wynochee Lake
Wynoochee River Downstream of confluence with Schafer Creek
Yakima River Downstream of Lake Easton
Existing natural dispersion BMPs (already having a WSDOT feature number) must be identified
within the project limits as a part of determining whether the particular TDA exceeds
thresholds in Figure 3-3, Step 8. Those effective impervious surface areas that are flowing to an
existing natural dispersion BMP can be subtracted as noneffective impervious surfaces.
The analysis for Step 8 in Figure 3-3 is based on “existing land cover” (what is currently seen at
the project site) conditions for the predeveloped modeling scenario and the post construction
(after the project is completed) land cover conditions for the developed modeling conditions.
Run the analysis at 15-minute time steps to see if the difference is more than 0.15 cfs. Model
permeable pavement as grass in this analysis. When using the Single Scaling Factor Approach
(called “Station Data” option in MGSFlood) to perform this analysis, contact the HQ Hydraulics
Section, since the data station may not be able to produce the 100-year flow due to insufficient
rainfall data. Refer to Section 4 of the MGSFlood User’s Manual for additional information on
the Single Scaling Factor Approach: www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/hydraulics/training.htm
3-3.6.4 Guidelines
Infiltration or dispersion is the preferred method to control flow. If infiltration or dispersion
cannot be achieved at the project site, refer to the appropriate design criteria listed below
and in Chapter 4.
Do not place flow control BMPs or the live storage portion of a combination flow control/runoff
treatment BMP below the seasonal high water table. As an alternative, first look for equivalent
areas within the same TDA to provide the necessary flow control. If a feasible location cannot
be identified within the TDA, seek out equivalent areas—within WSDOT right of way—upstream
of the TDA that discharges to the same receiving water body to provide the necessary flow
control. Lastly, if a feasible location upstream of the TDA cannot be identified, seek out
equivalent areas—within WSDOT right of way—downstream of the TDA that discharges to the
same receiving water body to provide the necessary flow control. Document these constraints
using the Engineering and Economic Feasibility (EEF) Evaluation Process (see Appendix 2A). If
the PEO has to provide flow control outside of the TDA, it would go to the Demonstrative
Approach Team. See Section 3-5.
If none of the above options is feasible within the project site, then explore alternative flow
control mitigation in the watershed (for example, purchasing land and converting it back to a
forested condition or restoring wetlands in close proximity to the project site). Refer to Section
2-4.7 for more information on watershed-based approaches and Section 3-5 for stormwater
deviations to the HRM.

April 2019
Avoid placing BMPs in wetlands, 100-year floodplains, and intertidal areas. These natural
systems have a higher net environmental benefit than engineered stormwater management
systems. If the placement of a required flow control BMP would impact such a sensitive area,
consult the RHE as early as possible for aid in properly analyzing the effects of various flow
control options. The RHE and Environmental offices will also coordinate with the appropriate
state, local, tribal, and federal agencies to ensure adequate protection of all natural resources
and obtain the required permits.
Design specifications for conveyance and flood prevention are reviewed with the assistance
of the RHE or HQ Hydraulics Section.
Western Washington Design Criteria

Ensure stormwater discharges match developed discharge durations to predeveloped durations
for the range of predeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full
50-year peak flow. Also, check the 100-year peak flow rate for downstream flooding and
property damage using an approved continuous simulation model.
Refer to Section 4-3.5.4 for the appropriate modeling process. Also, reference the same section
for the modeling process to address mitigated and nonmitigated areas on projects in on-site
and off-site flow bypass situations.
Predeveloped Condition for Stormwater Hydrology Modeling

The project site’s predeveloped conditions for effective impervious surfaces are to assume
“historic” land cover conditions unless one of the following conditions applies:
< Reasonable, historic information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior
to settlement (modeled as “pasture” in MGSFlood).
< The drainage area of the immediate stream and all subsequent downstream basins
has had at least 40% total impervious area since 1985. In this case, the predeveloped
condition to be matched must be the existing land cover condition. Where basin-
specific studies determine a stream channel to be unstable, even though the above
criterion is met, the predeveloped condition assumption must be the “historic” land
cover condition or a land cover condition commensurate with achieving a target flow
regime identified by an Ecology-approved basin study. More information on qualifying
basins is available in I-3.4.7 Volume I of Ecology’s SWMMWW.
Table 3-6 summarizes flow control criteria for western Washington.

April 2019
Table 3-6 Western Washington flow control criteria.

Infiltration facilities Size facility to infiltrate sufficient volumes so that the Continuous simulation
overflow matches the duration standard, and check model using 15-minute
the 100-year peak flow to estimate the potential for time steps
downstream property damage, or infiltrate the entire
runoff file up to the 100-year event.
Detention/combination Provide storage volume required to match the Continuous simulation
treatment and duration of predeveloped peak flows from 50% of the model using 15-minute
detention facilities 2-year up to the 50-year storm flow, using a flow time steps
restrictor (such as an orifice or weir), and check the
100-year peak flow for property damage.
Establish an alternative flow control standard by applying watershed-scale hydrologic modeling

and supporting field observations. Possible justifications for an alternative flow control
standard include:
1. Establishment of a stream-specific threshold of significant bedload movement other
than the assumed 50% of the 2-year peak flow; OR
2. Zoning and Land Clearing Ordinance restrictions that, in combination with an
alternative flow control standard, maintain or reduce the naturally occurring
erosive forces on the stream channel, with local jurisdiction approval; OR
3. A duration control standard is not necessary for protection, maintenance, or
restoration of designated and existing beneficial uses or Clean Water Act
compliance.
Eastern Washington Design Criteria

Using a single-event model, flow control design requirements for projects must limit the peak
release rate of the postdeveloped 2-year peak flow to 50% of the predeveloped 2-year peak
flow and maintain the predeveloped 25-year peak runoff rate. Check the 100-year event for
downstream flooding and property damage.
Predeveloped Condition for Stormwater Hydrology Modeling

The project site’s predeveloped conditions for effective impervious surfaces are to assume an
existing land cover. Table 3-7 summarizes flow control criteria for eastern Washington.

April 2019
Table 3-7 Eastern Washington flow control criteria.

Infiltration facilities Size facility to infiltrate sufficient runoff volumes Single-event model
that the overflow does not exceed the 25-year (SCS or SBUH)
peak flow requirement. Check the 100-year peak Climatic Regions 1–4
flow to estimate the potential for downstream Regional Storm; OR
property damage, or infiltrate the entire runoff Type 1A Storm for Climatic
file up to the 100-year event. Regions 2 & 3 only
Detention/combination Provide storage volume required to match ½ of Single-event model (SCS or
treatment and the 2-year predeveloped peak flow rate, match SBUH) Climatic Regions 1–4
detention facilities the predeveloped 25-year peak flow rate, and Regional Storm; OR
check the 100-year peak flow for property Type 1A Storm for Climatic
damage. Regions 2 & 3 only
Estimate predevelopment and postdevelopment runoff volumes and flow rates in accordance
with Table 3-7 and Section 4-4.2 using the Regional Storm for Climatic Regions 1–4, OR Type 1A
Storm for Climatic Regions 2 and 3.
In some instances, the 2-year predeveloped flow rate is zero cubic feet per second or the flow
rate is so small that it is impracticable to design a pond to release at the prescribed flow rate
from an engineered outlet structure. In these cases, the total postdeveloped 2-year storm
runoff volume must be infiltrated (preferred) or stored in a retention pond for evaporation and
the detention pond designed to release the predeveloped 10- and 25-year flow rates. (See BMP
FC.03, Detention Pond, in Section 5-4.2.3 for pond and release structure design information.)
Infiltration facilities for flow control must be designed based on postdeveloped runoff volumes,
and must be designed to infiltrate the entire volume of the criteria noted in Table 3-7. If full
infiltration is not possible, ensure all surface discharges match the following criteria:
< If the 2-year postdeveloped outflow volume discharged to a surface water is less than
or equal to the 2-year predeveloped outflow volume, then the postdeveloped 2-year
flow rate must be less than or equal to the 2-year predeveloped flow rates. The flows
for the 25- and 100-year events must meet the criteria in Table 3-7, row 2.
< If the 2-year postdeveloped outflow volume is greater than the 2-year predeveloped
outflow volume, then all surface water discharges must match the flow rate standards
in Table 3-7, row 2.
The justification from Ecology for matching one-half the preexisting flow rate is the added work
done on the natural channel by the excess volume released in a typical “detention/retention”
pond system. If infiltration disposes of the extra volume produced by the added impervious
areas, then releasing flow at the preexisting 2-year rate mimics the existing hydrologic
conditions.

April 2019
Minimum Requirement 7 – Wetlands Protection

Stormwater discharges to wetlands must maintain the wetland’s hydrologic conditions
(particularly hydroperiod), hydrophytic vegetation, and substrate characteristics that are
necessary to maintain existing wetland functions and values.
3-3.7.1 Objective
The objective of wetlands protection is to ensure wetlands receive the same level of protection
as any other waters of the state.
described in Figure 3-1 and where stormwater discharges into a wetland, either directly or
indirectly.
3-3.7.3 Guidelines
Take steps during design to maximize natural water storage and infiltration opportunities
within the project site and outside of existing wetlands and wetland buffers. One strategy to
help minimize impacts to existing wetlands is to maintain the same amount of impervious and
pervious areas going to the wetland before the project and after the project. When doing major
road construction with lots of curves and grade changes, this might be difficult without careful
planning. The following sections outline the policies for wetland protection in western
Washington and eastern Washington.
3-3.7.3.1 Western Washington

At the time of publication of the April 2019 HRM, Ecology’s draft 2019 SWMMWW has not yet
been finalized. WSDOT is using Ecology’s draft guidance which, although unlikely, may change
in a future supplement to the 2019 HRM.
All stormwater discharges to Category I wetlands, Category II wetlands, or Category III
wetlands (with a habitat score greater than 19) where existing flows are increased or
decreased shall have a wetland hydroperiod analysis. See the Section 4-6.1 for details on how
to perform the Wetland Hydroperiod Analysis.
If a Category I, II, or III (with a habitat score greater than 19) wetland is in a TDA that exceeds
thresholds for runoff treatment and/or flow control, then the appropriate level of runoff
treatment and flow control will be provided per HRM Minimum Requirement 5 and/or 6 before
flows can be discharged into the wetland.
If a Category I, II, or III (with a habitat score greater than 19) wetland is in a TDA that does not
exceeds thresholds for runoff treatment, then a BMP is not needed before TDA flows can be
discharged into the wetland. Any increase or decrease in flow to the wetland types listed above
shall be analyzed by a wetland hydroperiod analysis per Section 4-6.1.

April 2019
Stormwater runoff treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a wetland or its
buffer if the wetland is:
< A Category I wetland, Category II wetland, or Category III wetland with a habitat score
greater than 19; OR
< A wetland that provides habitat for threated or endangered species.
If a wetland type listed above needs to be included in a stormwater system then this activity is
considered an impact. It will be treated as any other impact, and shall be mitigated according to
the rules for wetland mitigation. The PEO shall demonstrate that the project has done
everything possible to avoid and minimize impacts to the wetland before proceeding to
compensatory wetland mitigation.
Although Ecology’s Guide Sheet 2 does allow low class (all Category IV wetlands and Category III
wetlands with a habitat score of 19 or less) wetlands to possibly be physically and hydrologically
altered to meet the requirements of a runoff treatment and/or flow control BMP, WSDOT
generally does not allow this. If modifying an existing low class wetland is the only option
available to meet TDA stormwater requirements, the PEO shall work with the RHE to make sure
all 5 criteria in Guide Sheet 2 are met before proposing a plan to modify an existing wetland.
The PEO should expect to:
< Apply for required permit(s); AND
< Meet all 5 design criteria requirements in Guide Sheet 2; AND
< Provide wetland mitigation per permit conditions; AND
< Provide a Demonstrative Approach Team submittal for approval.
Protect wetland functions and values by using the following 7 strategies:
1. Consult regulations issued under federal and state laws that govern the discharge of
pollutants. Wetlands are classified as "Waters of the United States" and "Waters of the
State" in Washington.
2. Maintain the wetland buffer required by local regulations.
3. Retain areas of native vegetation connecting the wetland and its buffer with nearby
wetlands and other contiguous areas of native vegetation.
4. Avoid compaction of soil and introduction of exotic plant species during any work in a
wetland.
5. Take measures to avoid general urban impacts (e. g., littering and vegetation destruction).
Examples are protecting existing buffer zones; discouraging access, especially by vehicles,
and by plantings outside the wetland.

April 2019
6. Fences can be useful to restrict dogs and pedestrian access, but they also interfere with
wildlife movements. Their use should be very carefully evaluated on the basis of the relative
importance of intrusive impacts versus wildlife presence. Fences should generally not be
installed when wildlife would be restricted and intrusion is relatively minor. They generally
should be used when wildlife passage is not a major issue and the potential for intrusive
impacts is high. When wildlife movements and intrusion are both issues, the circumstances will
have to be weighed to make a decision about fencing.
7. If the wetland inlet will be modified by the project, use a flow spreading option per Section
5-4.3.5 to discharge water into the wetland in order to prevent flow channelization.
3-3.7.3.2 Eastern Washington

Discharge of stormwater to existing jurisdictional wetlands, either directly or via a conveyance
system, should be avoided unless the wetland already receives surface runoff from the project.
If possible, only stormwater from landscape and roof areas should be discharged to wetlands.
Discharges must comply with all applicable HRM thresholds and, if triggered, the corresponding
HRM Minimum Requirements to ensure that wetlands receive the same level of protection as
any other waters of the State.
Stormwater BMPs are not allowed within a wetland or its buffer except for the following
conditions:
• Necessary conveyance systems approved by the local jurisdiction

• As allowed in a wetland mitigation plan
• When the wetland meets requirements meets the requirements below:
A wetland can be considered for use in stormwater treatment if it meets the criteria for
“Eastern Washington wetland hydrologic modification” (listed below) AND is either:
• A Category IV wetland according to the Wetland Rating System for Eastern

Washington (Ecology, 2014); or
• A Category III wetland according to the Wetland Rating System for Eastern
Washington (Ecology, 2014) and the wetland has been previously disturbed by
human activity (defined as evidenced by agriculture, fill areas, ditches or the wetland
is dominated by introduced or invasive weedy plant species as identified in the
rating analysis).
A Category III wetland that has been previously disturbed by human activity (see
above bullet for definition) may be used to meet enhanced runoff treatment
requirements.
If a Category I wetland, Category II wetland, or Category III (that has not been previously
disturbed by human activity) wetland is in a TDA that exceeds thresholds for runoff treatment
and/or flow control, then the appropriate level of runoff treatment and flow control will be
provided per HRM Minimum Requirement 5 and/or 6 before flows can be discharged into the
wetland. Oil control is required for all discharges to wetlands from high-use sites (see definition
in the glossary).

April 2019
If a Category I wetland, Category II wetland, or Category III (that has not been previously
disturbed by human activity) wetland is in a TDA that does not exceeds thresholds for runoff
treatment, then a BMP is not needed before TDA flows can be discharged into the wetland. Any
increase or decrease in flow to the wetland types listed above shall be analyzed by a wetland
hydroperiod analysis per Section 4-6.2.
Mitigation is required for the impact of using a wetland as a runoff treatment BMP. Appropriate
measures include enhancement, expansion, and/or preservation of a buffer around the
wetland.
Caution: Wetlands may accumulate the salts in anti-icing and deicing chemicals, so use of such
chemicals should be limited in the areas discharging to the wetland (see HRM Minimum
Requirement 3 Source Control of Pollutants).
Eastern Washington wetland hydrologic modification

A Category III or IV wetland receiving stormwater from a new development or redevelopment
project can be considered for hydrologic modification if it is a Category III or IV wetland
according to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology,
2014), and the following criteria are met:
• There is good evidence that the natural hydrologic regime of the wetland can be
restored by augmenting its water supply with excess stormwater runoff, or the wetland
is under imminent threat exclusive of stormwater management and could receive
greater protection if acquired for a stormwater management project rather than left in
existing ownership.
• The runoff is from the same natural drainage basin; the wetland lies in the natural
routing of the runoff, and the site plan allows runoff discharge at the natural location.
Exceptions may be made for regional facilities planned by the local jurisdiction, but the
wetland should receive water from sites in the same watershed.
Hydrologic modification shall not be allowed if the wetland is classified as Category I or

Category II according to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern
Washington (Ecology, 2014) unless the PEO demonstrates that preferred methods of excess
stormwater disposal (e.g., infiltration) are not possible at the site and that other options (e.g.,
evaporation) would result in more damage to the wetland by limiting inflow. Mitigation shall
be required for the impact of hydrologic modification on a wetland. Appropriate measures
include expansion, enhancement and/or preservation of a buffer around the wetland.

April 2019
Minimum Requirement 8 – Incorporating Approved Basin

Plans Into Stormwater Management
Incorporate Ecology-approved basin plans into stormwater management.
3-3.8.1 Objective
Approved basin plans may be used by a local jurisdiction to revise minimum requirements for
runoff treatment, flow control, and/or wetlands protection. Approved basin plans provide a
mechanism to evaluate and refine minimum requirements and applicable BMPs based on an
analysis of a basin or watershed. Approved basin plans may be used to develop control
strategies to address impacts from future development and to correct specific problems when
sources are known or suspected. Approved basin plans can be effective at addressing both
long-term cumulative impacts of pollutant loads and short-term acute impacts of pollutant
concentrations, as well as hydrologic impacts to streams, wetlands, and ground water
resources. The objective of incorporating approved basin plans into WSDOT’s stormwater
management process is to promote watershed-based stormwater management.
Minimum Requirement 8 applies where approved basin plans, meeting the criteria described
below, are in effect for all nonexempt projects that meet or exceed the thresholds described in
Figure 3-1. Only those Ecology-approved basin plans listed in Ecology’s SWMMWW Appendix 1-
B are applicable to WSDOT. New Ecology-approved basin plans may be added upon NPDES
Municipal Stormwater Permit reissuance in 2024.
3-3.8.3 Guidelines
While Minimum Requirements 1 through 7 establish general standards for individual sites, they
do not evaluate the overall pollution impacts and protection opportunities that could exist at a
watershed scale. In order for an approved basin plan to revise the standards of one or more of
the minimum requirements, the following conditions must be met:
< The basin plan must be formally adopted by all jurisdictions with responsibility under
the plan; and
< All ordinances or regulations called for by the approved basin plan must be in effect;
and
< The basin plan must be reviewed and approved by Ecology.
Ecology-approved basin plans may also be used to demonstrate an equivalent level of runoff
treatment, flow control, and/or wetland protection through the construction and use of
regional stormwater facilities. (See Section 2-4.7 for further guidelines on approved Basin
Plans.) Refer to Ecology’s SWMMWW for examples of how approved Basin Plans can alter the
Minimum Requirements of this manual.

April 2019
Minimum Requirement 9 – Operation and Maintenance

Operation and maintenance must be applied to all projects that require stormwater facilities or
BMPs and shall be accomplished programmatically via WSDOT’s maintenance program. The
PEO shall provide a BMP operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the criteria
in Section 5-5 for all proposed stormwater facilities and BMPs. This is commonly called a BMP
maintenance manual or BMP maintenance plan. Contact the RHE for the region specific BMP
maintenance manual template. The PEO shall update existing BMP maintenance plans for any
existing stormwater BMPs modified or removed by the project. A record of maintenance
activities that indicate what actions were taken shall be kept.
3-3.9.1 Objective
The objective of operation and maintenance is to achieve appropriate preventive maintenance
and performance checks to ensure stormwater facilities are adequately maintained and
properly operated to:
< Remove pollutants and/or control flows as designed.
< Permit the maximum use of the roadway.
< Prevent damage to the highway structure.
< Protect natural resources.
< Protect abutting property from physical damage.
Minimum Requirement 9 applies to all projects that require stormwater facilities or BMPs and
is accomplished programmatically via WSDOT’s maintenance program.
3-3.9.3 Guidelines
Inadequate maintenance is a common cause of stormwater management facility degraded
performance or failure. Section 5-5 provides criteria for BMP maintenance. The Maintenance
Manual provides further guidelines on stormwater management-related operation and
maintenance activities.

April 2019
3-4 Stormwater Retrofit Guidelines

WSDOT intends to manage stormwater runoff from all state highways and protect the quality of
receiving waters. WSDOT retrofits existing pavement that does not have stormwater treatment
or flow control, or for which treatment or flow control is not to current standards contained in
the HRM using stand-alone, project-triggered, and opportunity-based stormwater retrofits.
This section provides guidelines to assess stormwater retrofit obligations for WSDOT projects
and identify stormwater retrofit opportunities, and provides guidance on how to document
stormwater retrofits after they occur.
Stand-Alone Stormwater Retrofit Projects

Standalone stormwater retrofits, funded through the Environmental Retrofit sub-program (I-4),
occur when projects are initiated to address stormwater treatment and/or flow control at a
prioritized location defined by the stormwater needs prioritization process. Stand-alone
stormwater retrofits include Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) retrofit obligations assigned in
Appendix 3 of WSDOT’s NPDES Municipal Permit (WSDOT’s Permit), and potentially Superfund
remediation triggered retrofits5, as the highest priorities (i.e., these two situations result in the
highest scores during the prioritization process). WSDOT’s Permit describes stormwater
retrofit-related requirements. WSDOT’s associated Stormwater Management Program Plan
(SWMPP) describes how WSDOT implements those stormwater retrofit requirements. Section
6.6 and Table 6-1 in the SWMPP defines WSDOT’s Stormwater Retrofit Prioritization Scheme
(i.e. needs prioritization process) for stand-alone stormwater retrofit segments. It involves a
qualitative and quantitative process for assigning a retrofit priority value (high, medium, or low)
to specific highway segment locations. Prioritized highway segments are used in the stand-
alone and Puget Sound Basin project-triggered stormwater retrofit processes.
Statewide stand-alone stormwater retrofit funding is appropriated in I-4 by the Legislature.
Puget Sound basin specific stand-alone stormwater retrofits also receive funds that are
transferred from projects within the Puget Sound basin (Project-Triggered retrofit) as described
in Section 3-4.2.2 below.
5
A Superfund site is a contaminated location included on the National Priorities List by the EPA that has been or will be
remediated (cleaned up) – more information at: Superfund Cleanup Process | Superfund | US EPA.

April 2019
Project-Triggered Stormwater Retrofit Projects

There are two types of project-triggered retrofits that could occur on a project. The first type is
statewide and has to do with replaced impervious surfaces and replaced PGIS. The second type
has to do with projects within the Puget Sound Basin.
3-4.2.1 Project-Triggered Stormwater Retrofits Statewide

Statewide, projects may have the requirements where the replaced impervious surface
requirements (Figure 3-1 Step 4) and/or replaced PGIS (Figure 3-2 Step 6) are applicable and are
subject to flow control and/or runoff treatment. These situations constitute a project-triggered
retrofit and should be documented in the SDDS.
3-4.2.2 Project-Triggered Retrofits within the Puget Sound Basin

A WSDOT project within the Puget Sound Basin has additional project-triggered stormwater
retrofit requirements when the project adds new impervious surface and meets or exceeds the
thresholds that trigger runoff treatment or flow control requirements (i.e., Minimum
Requirements 5 or 6) in any threshold discharge area.
The PEO must perform a Stormwater Retrofit Cost-Effectiveness and Feasibility (RCEF) analysis
to determine and document the extent to which retrofit obligations can be met within the
project limits. The RCEF analysis will determine if it is cost-effective6 and feasible7 to retrofit all
existing impervious surfaces and existing PGIS within the project. If the RCEF analysis shows it is
not cost-effective or feasible to treat all existing impervious surfaces and existing PGIS within
the project, then the PEO has three options:
< Retrofit, at a minimum, the amount of existing impervious surface and existing PGIS
within the project limits that equates to 20% of the cost to meet stormwater
requirements for the new impervious surfaces and new pollutant generating
impervious surface (i.e., 20% cost obligation);
< Transfer an amount of money equal to the 20% cost obligation to fund stand-alone
stormwater retrofit projects within the Puget Sound Basin; however, projects with
high priority retrofit areas (see Section 3-4.1 for a discussion on stormwater retrofit
prioritization) falling within their project boundaries cannot use this option; OR
< Meet the 20% cost obligation within the project site to the extent feasible and transfer
funds equivalent to the unmet balance to fund stand-alone stormwater retrofit
projects within the Puget Sound Basin.
6
Retrofitting for stormwater treatment and flow control is cost-effective if the cost to retrofit all the existing impervious surfaces
and existing pollution generating impervious surfaces on the project does not exceed 20% of the cost to meet stormwater
treatment and flow control requirements for the new impervious surfaces and new pollution generating impervious surfaces on
the project.
7
Feasible means there are no physical site limitations such as geographic or geologic constraints, steep slopes, soil instability,
proximity to water bodies, presence of significant cultural resources, or shallow water tables (or other applicable factors
contained in WSDOT’s RCEF analysis document)

April 2019
The PEO must document the amount of stormwater retrofit completed on the project along
with other applicable stormwater retrofit information in the SDDS available at:
WSDOT regions may request a variance to exceed the 20% cost obligation for extenuating
circumstances such as the project falls within a high-priority retrofit location, the project
has realized reduced costs in other project elements, and/or the cost exceedance is not
significantly above 20%.
Figure 3-4 Stormwater retrofit process for WSDOT projects within the Puget Sound basin
Opportunity-Based Stormwater Retrofits

Opportunity-based stormwater retrofits occur when projects elect to go beyond the HRM
Minimum Requirements and provide stormwater treatment and flow control for runoff from
existing impervious surfaces and existing PGIS. Opportunity-based retrofits help WSDOT
achieve its goal to treat all existing highway pavement. The retrofit should strive for full HRM
standards if feasible. In many cases, the stormwater retrofit opportunity may be maximized by
building stormwater BMPs to partial HRM standards. The stormwater BMP used for opportunity
based retrofit should be documented as designed to full or partial HRM standards in the SDDS
and the Stormwater BMP Specifications (SWABS) web application. SWABS is only accessible to
WSDOT staff.

April 2019
3-5 Stormwater Adjustments and Deviations to the HRM

Instances exist where the HRM’s policies and guidelines do not seem appropriate for a
particular project situation. There are two ways the PEO can take towards compliance in these
situations. The first path is for the PEO to seek an Adjustment to the HRM. The second pathway
is for the PEO to seek a stormwater Deviation to the HRM.
Adjustments
Adjustments to the Minimum Requirements may be granted by WSDOT provided that a written
finding of fact is prepared, that addresses the following:
• The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection.
• Based on sound Engineering practices, the objectives of safety, function,
environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met.
Deviations
For these situations, WSDOT’s Demonstrative Approach Team (DAT), which includes staff from
Ecology and WSDOT, reviews and approves (if appropriate) alternative stormwater design
proposals. While stormwater deviations rarely relieve the project from minimum requirement
obligations, the DAT can approve an alternate compliance pathway to meeting the intent of the
minimum requirements using a project-specific demonstrative approach. However, prior to
considering the demonstrative approach pathway, explore whether the equivalent area
approach, described in Sections 3-3.5 and 3-3.6, will allow the project to meet the manual’s
requirements.
Highway projects seeking an alternative compliance pathway typically experience site-specific
limitations (e.g., infrastructural, geographical, geotechnical, hydraulic, environmental, or
benefit/cost related) that present an obstacle to fully meeting minimum requirements,
particularly runoff treatment and flow control, within the project right of way. An example
might involve efforts to avoid building a detention pond in a heavily forested area and instead
opting for an off-site in-kind (nonforested) location to achieve the required flow control
obligation.
The PEO must make a formal assessment to identify constraints on meeting the minimum
requirements in the TDA. Appendix 2A includes guidelines for this assessment, referred to as an
engineering and economic feasibility (EEF) evaluation. Perform the EEF assessment as early as
possible in project development to document the basis for seeking an alternative compliance
pathway. The PEO must also formulate a workable alternative stormwater design (deviation)
that will meet the intent of the HRM (i.e., does not adversely affect the water quality and
satisfies state and federal water quality laws). Contact the RHE and the HQ Hydraulics Section
to begin the demonstrative approach process.8
8
In addition to initiating the demonstrative approach, the RHE or the HQ Hydraulics Section staff may be able to
provide guidance or alternatives that allow the project to meet its stormwater requirements without engaging the
DAT.

April 2019
Scale the documentation below to the complexity of the problem. Provide a brief memo or
report that describes why typical HRM BMPs or processes cannot be used on site and how the
proposed alternative meets the intent of the HRM. Include sufficient photos, calculations,
plans, drawings, or other backup documentation that supports the conclusions that the
demonstrative approach is necessary and the proposed solution meets the intent of the HRM.
The steps below describe the general process for seeking a HRM deviation review and approval:
1. The PEO identifies the requirements or guidelines in the HRM that the project
proposes to deviate from and consults with RHE and Headquarters Hydraulics
Section for concurrence and the required documentation.
2. The PEO provides the justification for the deviation using the EEF evaluation. The
PEO also provides the alternative design and shows how it achieves the intent of the
HRM policy or guidance. Consult with the RHE and HQ Hydraulics Section for
assistance on possible alternative designs.
3. The PEO submits the documentation (#1 and #2 above) to the DAT for review and
approval.
4. If approved, the DAT issues a joint WSDOT and Ecology letter to the PEO authorizing
the alternative stormwater compliance approach.
If approved, the PEO shall include all of the above documentation in the appendix of the
project’s Hydraulic Report.
The PEO should coordinate potential DAT submittals with the DAT team leader as early as
possible. For design-build-bid projects, this would occur during project development. For
design-build projects, this would occur during the Request for Proposal (RFP) development.

April 2019
CHAPTER 4
Hydrologic Analysis
Chapter 4 Contents
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-ii

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-ii
4-1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................4-1
4-2 Project Considerations ......................................................................................................................4-1
4-2.1 Estimating Preliminary Stormwater BMP Areas ...................................................................4-2
4-2.2 Local and State Requirements ..............................................................................................4-2
4-2.3 Soils .......................................................................................................................................4-2
4-2.4 Determining Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................4-3
4-2.5 Mapping Drainage Basins and Threshold Discharge Areas ...................................................4-3
4-2.6 Calculating Final Stormwater BMP Areas .............................................................................4-5
4-3 Western Washington Design Criteria ................................................................................................4-8
4-3.1 Runoff Treatment Flow-Based and Volume-Based BMPs.....................................................4-8
4-3.1.1 Flow-Based Runoff Treatment...............................................................................4-8
4-3.1.2 Volume-Based Runoff Treatment........................................................................4-10
4-3.2 Flow Control Volume and Flow Duration-Based BMPs.......................................................4-11
4-3.3 Exemptions for Flow Control ..............................................................................................4-11
4-3.4 Hydrologic Analysis Methods for Designing BMPs in Western Washington: HSPF
versus SBUH ........................................................................................................................4-11
4-3.5 Hydrologic Analysis Methods and Details for Flow Control and Runoff Treatment
Facility Design .....................................................................................................................4-11
4-3.5.1 Continuous Simulation Method ..........................................................................4-11
4-3.5.2 Predevelopment Land Cover ...............................................................................4-12
4-3.5.3 Reversion of Existing Impervious Surface Areas..................................................4-12
4-3.5.4 Flow Control Modeling Scenarios, Off-Site Flow, and Flow-Through Areas........4-13
4-3.5.5 Modeling Best Management Practices (BMPs) ...................................................4-17
4-4 Eastern Washington Design Criteria ................................................................................................4-19
4-4.1 Runoff Treatment Flow-Based and Volume-Based BMPs...................................................4-19
4-4.1.1 Flow-Based Runoff Treatment.............................................................................4-20
4-4.1.2 Volume-Based Runoff Treatment........................................................................4-20
4-4.2 Flow Control BMPs..............................................................................................................4-20
4-4.3 Temporary Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control .............................................4-21
4-4.4 Exemptions for Flow Control ..............................................................................................4-21
4-4.5 Hydrologic Analysis Methods for Flow Control and Runoff Treatment Facility Design ......4-21
4-4.6 Single-Event Hydrograph Method ......................................................................................4-23
4-4.7 Eastern Washington Design Storm Events..........................................................................4-24
4-4.8 Modeling Using Low-Impact Development Techniques in Eastern Washington ................4-24
4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria and LID Feasibility .................................................................................4-26
4-5.1 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) ...............................................................................................4-27
4-5.2 LID Feasibility ......................................................................................................................4-34
4-5.3 Infiltration Rates, Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, and Hydraulic Gradients..................4-36
4-5.4 Underground Injection Wells ..............................................................................................4-37

April 2019
Contents Chapter 4
4-6Wetland Hydroperiods ....................................................................................................................4-38

4-6.1 Western Washington ..........................................................................................................4-38
4-6.2 Eastern Washington ............................................................................................................4-40
4-7 Closed Depression Analysis .............................................................................................................4-40
4-8 References .......................................................................................................................................4-40
Appendix 4A Web Links ...............................................................................................................................4A-1
Appendix 4B TR-55 Curve Number Tables ................................................................................................... 4B-1
Appendix 4C Eastern Washington Design Storm Events .............................................................................. 4C-1
Appendix 4D Infiltration Testing and Design ............................................................................................... 4D-1
List of Tables
Table 4-1 Flow control modeling techniques based on land use. ...............................................................4-18
Table 4-2 Flow control modeling techniques for LID BMPs. .......................................................................4-18
List of Figures
Figure 4-1 Threshold discharge areas (plan view) ..........................................................................................4-4
Figure 4-2 Threshold discharge areas (plan view) ..........................................................................................4-5
Figure 4-3 Threshold discharge areas (section and profile). ..........................................................................4-5
Figure 4-4 Hydrologic analysis flowchart for western Washington................................................................4-6
Figure 4-5 Hydrologic analysis flowchart for eastern Washington. ...............................................................4-7
Figure 4-6 Typical on-line and off-line facility configurations. .......................................................................4-8
Figure 4-7 Example showing calculation of runoff treatment discharge for off-line treatment facilities—
computed as 0.23cfs......................................................................................................................4-9
Figure 4-8 Example showing calculation of runoff treatment discharge for on-line treatment facilities—
computed as 0.28cfs....................................................................................................................4-10
Figure 4-9 Equivalent area option. ...............................................................................................................4-15
Figure 4-10 Full area option. ..........................................................................................................................4-16
Figure 4-11 Point of Compliance option.........................................................................................................4-17
Figure 4-12 Soil Suitability Criteria 1 Flow Chart. ...........................................................................................4-30
Figure 4-13 Soil Suitability Criteria 2-4 Flow Chart. ........................................................................................4-31

April 2019
Chapter 4 Hydrologic Analysis
4-1 Introduction
This chapter presents and defines the minimum computational standards for the types of
hydrologic analyses required to design the various stormwater best management practices
(BMPs) described in detail in Chapter 5 and the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
Manual (TESCM). It also provides an explanation of the methods to be used for the modeling
of stormwater facilities and the supporting data and assumptions that will be needed to
complete the design. The computational standards, methods of analysis, and necessary
supporting data and assumptions for designs in western Washington are different than those
in eastern Washington. As a result, Section 4-3 includes design criteria and guidelines for
western Washington, and Section 4-4 includes design criteria and guidelines for eastern
Washington. The hydrologic analysis tools and methodologies presented in this chapter
support the following tasks:
 Designing stormwater runoff treatment and flow control facilities
 Designing infiltration facilities
 Closed Depression Analyses
 Analyzing wetland hydroperiod effects
This manual makes numerous references to the Hydraulics Manual, where additional design
guidelines can be found, including the minimum computational standards, methods of analysis,
and necessary supporting data and assumptions for analysis and design of the following:
 General hydrology
 Culverts and other fish passage structures
 Open channel flow
 Storm sewer design
 Drainage from highway pavement (inlet spacing and curb and gutter)
 Hydraulics issues associated with bridge structure design
 Downstream analysis
 Pipe classification and materials
4-2 Project Considerations

Prior to conducting any detailed stormwater runoff calculations, consider the overall relationship
between the proposed project site and the runoff it will create. This section provides guidelines
regarding what parameters the PEO should review to adequately evaluate the project.

April 2019
Hydrologic Analysis Chapter 4
The general hydrologic characteristics of the project site dictate the amount of runoff that will
occur and where stormwater facilities can be placed. Several sources of information will be
useful in determining the information necessary for preliminary and final runoff analyses.
Determine drainage patterns and contributing areas by consulting topographic contour maps
generated from surveys of the area for the proposed project or by using contour maps from
a previous project in the same area.
4-2.1 Estimating Preliminary Stormwater BMP Areas

Develop preliminary estimates of the area that will be required for stormwater BMPs when the
project layout is first being determined. These estimates of stormwater BMP sizes and areas
may dictate changes to the roadway or other infrastructure design and support decisions to
purchase additional right of way for the project. Make assumptions for any information that is
not available and document them in the analysis. The following information is required to
successfully estimate the approximate area required for preliminary stormwater treatment
and flow control facilities:
 The footprint of the proposed roadway or other new infrastructure or improvements
on the project
 The general hydrologic characteristics of the project site
 The amount of area flowing to each BMP location to make sure HRM Minimum
Requirements for runoff treatment and/or flow control are satisfied
 Account for project-triggered retrofits (see Section 3-4)
4-2.2 Local and State Requirements

In most cases, the minimum requirements for stormwater facilities described in the Highway
Runoff Manual (HRM) will be adequate to meet other state agency and local jurisdiction
requirements. Section 1-2.1 explains to what extent a local jurisdiction’s stormwater
requirements apply to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects. The
first part of any hydrologic analysis involves research to determine whether the project is
located in an area where additional requirements prevail. The PEO can typically accomplish this
by consulting with Region Hydraulics Engineer. When stricter standards do apply, they are
usually related to unique runoff treatment concerns, a need for flow control under more
extreme storm conditions than is required by the HRM, or a need for lower site discharge rates
than are required by this manual. Either case is easily applied to the methods of analysis
outlined in this chapter.
4-2.3 Soils
Quite often, additional sources of information are needed to adequately characterize on-site
soils, particularly within existing highway rights of way and in other urban areas. The WSDOT
Materials Lab can provide detailed information on soils and shallow groundwater characteristics
in conjunction with geotechnical field data collection efforts. Typically, the PEO must inform the

April 2019
Materials Lab of the need for gathering additional data for drainage analysis purposes early
in the project design phase. This is very important for determining infiltration rates.
4-2.4 Determining Existing Conditions

Access information on existing drainage facilities and conveyance system locations in Hydraulic
Reports from previous projects in the same vicinity, the Highway Activities Tracking Database
(HATS), the Stormwater BMP Specifications (SWABS) web application, or in as-built plans for
the existing roadway. The local jurisdiction may have mapping and/or as-built information for
storm drainage facilities near the WSDOT right of way and may know of other projects in the
vicinity that documented drainage conditions. A site visit will help the PEO determine the basic
hydrological characteristics of the proposed project site. Observations the PEO makes during a
field visit will serve to verify the information the PEO obtains through research and will show
where that information may have been deficient. In nearly every instance, the information the
PEO gains by visiting the site prior to designing the stormwater facilities will benefit the ensuing
design effort.
4-2.5 Mapping Drainage Basins and Threshold Discharge Areas

The final part of determining the site’s hydrologic characteristics is mapping draining basins to
the hydraulic features being designed. Hydraulic features include inlets, pipes, culverts, storm
sewer, and ditches. How to determine the drainage basins to these hydraulic features is
discussed in Section 2-3 of the Hydraulics Manual. Drainage basins for stormwater BMPs are
generally determined by the hydraulic features discussed above since stormwater is usually
routed to BMPs by sheet flow or through a conveyance system. Knowing how many threshold
discharge areas (TDAs) are within the project is also an important piece of information that is
needed understand the hydraulic characteristics of the project. TDAs will help define the HRM
Minimum Requirements and determine how much area needs to be captured by each
stormwater BMP.
A TDA is defined as an on-site area draining to a single natural or constructed discharge location
or multiple natural or constructed discharge locations that combine within ¼ mile
downstream—as determined by the shortest flowpath. A TDA delineation begins at the first
discharge location that exits WSDOT right of way and is based on preproject conditions. To map
a TDA, the PEO must have an understanding of drainage basin delineation per Section 2-3 of the
Hydraulics Manual. A TDA is very different from a drainage basin in that a hydraulic feature
would never be designed based on the actual area of the TDA. The limits of a TDA are generally
right of way line to right of way line and begin project milepost to end project milepost (see
Glossary for “project limits”). The limits of a TDA should be large enough to catalog all of the
development by the project. If the project were acquiring right of way, the TDA limits would
extend to the proposed right of way limits. In certain situations (for example a divided highway
with a grassy median), the TDA limits should also be scaled back to only the area undergoing
development. For example, if only the northbound lanes (one side of the highway) were
undergoing development while the southbound lanes (other side of the highway) and median
were not, only the northbound lanes would be shown as a part of TDA delineation (see Glossary
for “project site”). The discharge location of stormwater from the right of way is where a TDA

April 2019
delineation begins. Figures 4-1 to 4-4 give examples of how to delineate TDAs. Note: The PEO
must field verify all TDAs.
In Figure 4-1, each drainage area (A1 – A4) is delineated by the crown of the roadway to the top
of the ditch back slope (right of way limit) and between each vertical curve crest. Figure 4-3
shows the roadway profile and cross section. In drainage area A1, roadway runoff sheet flows
off of the pavement into the ditch that eventually flows into the culvert. Flows from drainage
area A1 combine with flows from drainage area A2 and leave WDSOT right of way using flow
path A2. The same conditions occur with drainage areas A3 and A4, which leave the right of
way using flow path A4. If flow paths A2 and A4 join within ¼ mile downstream from the right
of way, all four drainage areas would combine to make one TDA (as indicated in Figure 4-1). If
the discharges remain separate for at least ¼ mile downstream of the project site right of way,
drainage areas A1 and A2 combine to make one TDA and drainage areas A3 and A4 combine
to make a second TDA.
R/W
A1 A3
G A2 A4 G
R/W
F
Flowpath A2 Flowpath A4
¼ mile along flowpath A2
Figure 4-1 Threshold discharge areas (plan view)

Figure 4-2 illustrates the situation where the flow paths do not combine within ¼ mile and
result in two separate TDAs (assuming drainage areas A1, A2, A3, and A4 are within one TDA
and are represented by Flowpath A2). Measure ¼ mile along Flowpath A6. If Flowpath A2 (the
most upstream flow path) and Flowpath A6 join within the shortest measured ¼-mile flow path,
all areas are considered one TDA. Figure 4-2 shows Flowpath A2 and Flowpath A6 do not
combine within the ¼ mile, measured along the shortest flow path, so areas A1, A2, A3, and
A4 combine to form one TDA, while areas A5 and A6 combine to form a separate TDA. Flow
path A6 would be used to measure against any other additional flowpaths for combining
areas to form the next TDA.
The above TDA delineation guidance is not all-inclusive. Direct project-specific questions
regarding TDA delineations to the Region Hydraulics Engineer or the HQ Hydraulics staff. For

April 2019
eastern Washington regions, with the approval of the Region Hydraulics Engineer, the project
may be considered as one TDA in certain instances, based on site conditions. Once the PEO
completes TDA delineations, tally the quantities of new, replaced, and existing impervious areas
(and PGIS) for each TDA. Apply minimum requirement thresholds to each TDA based on tallied
quantities. (See Chapter 3 for minimum requirement applicability.)
R/W
A1 A3 A5
A2 A4 A6
R/W R/W
Flowpath A2 Flowpath A6

Figure 4-2 Threshold discharge areas (plan view)
Section F-F Roadway Cross Section Section G-G Roadway Profile

Roadway
Crown
Roadside
Ditch
Figure 4-3 Threshold discharge areas (section and profile).
4-2.6 Calculating Final Stormwater BMP Areas

Once the PEO understands the Minimum Requirements for each TDA and is familiar with the
general hydrologic characteristics of the site, the PEO can calculate the size of stormwater
BMPs by examining the proposed project layout and determining the most suitable locations
for BMPs. The PEO must ensure enough area is being captured and treated by stormwater
BMPs to satisfy Minimum Requirements. The PEO should also account for any Puget Sound
Basin Retrofit requirements (see Section 3-4). Flow charts are presented in Figures 4-4 and 4-5
to help the PEO navigate through the requirements of Chapter 4 and hydrologic analyses for
typical projects.

April 2019
Determine effective Determine applicable

impervious surface, converted Minimum
Determine
pervious surfaces, effective Requirements at the
threshold
PGIS areas, and PGPS areas TDA level.
discharge areas
per TDA.
(TDAs).
Select Flow Select Runoff Treatment BMPs

Control BMPs (see (see Chapter 5).
Chapter 5).
Flow-based: Flow-based:
Detention Infiltration upstream of flow Volume-based
downstream
facilities facilities control facility
of flow
for on-line &
control
off-line
facility
Design for Size facility to Design so that

Design for Design to Wetpool
duration infiltrate the runoff flow
2-year post- infiltrate/ systems: the
standard sufficient rate at or
developed filtrate 91st wetpool
using volumes so below which
release rate percentile volume
continuous that the 91% of the
from the of the should equal
simulation overflow total post-
detention postdeveloped the 91st
model, and matches the developed
facility runoff file as percentile,
check 100- duration runoff volume,
using predicted by a 24-hour
year peak standard, and using
continuous continuous runoff volume
flow rate. check 100-year continuous
simulation simulation as predicted
peak flow rate simulation
model. model. by a
or infiltrate model, will be
continuous
100% of the treated.
simulation
runoff volume
model.
at the 100-year
event.
Figure 4-4 Hydrologic analysis flowchart for western Washington.

April 2019
Determine effective
Determine impervious surface,
threshold converted pervious Determine applicable
discharge areas surfaces, effective PGIS minimum
(TDAs) of the areas, and PGPS areas per requirements.
project. threshold discharge area.
Select Flow Control BMPs Select Runoff Treatment BMPs

(see Chapter 5). (see Chapter 5).
Flow-based: Flow-based: Volume-

Detention Infiltration upstream of flow downstream of flow based for
facilities facilities control facility for control facility on-line
on-line & off-line
Design to infiltrate
Design to match sufficient runoff volume Design for Design for Design for
one-half of the that the overflow does not 6-month, post- 2-year post- 6-month,
2-year and 25-year exceed the 25-year peak
developed developed 24-hour
predeveloped peak flow requirement, and peak flow rate release rate postdeveloped
flow rates. Check check 100-year peak flow
su based on from the runoff volume
100-year peak flow rate to estimate the
Short- Duration detention using single-
rate for property potential for property
Storm using facility based event model
damage. Use damage, or infiltrate 100%
single-event on Short- (SBUH) –
single-event model of the runoff volume of
model (SBUH). Duration Regional
(SBUH) – Regional the 100-year event. Use Storm using Storm for
Storm for Climatic single-event model single-event Climatic
Regions 1-4 or Type (SBUH) – Regional Storm model (SBUH). Regions 1-4 or
1A in Climatic for Climatic Regions 1–4
Regions Type 1A in
or Type 1A in Climatic
2 & 3. Climatic
Regions 2 & 3.
Regions 2 & 3.
Flow control requirements
must be met.
Figure 4-5 Hydrologic analysis flowchart for eastern Washington.

April 2019
4-3 Western Washington Design Criteria

4-3.1 Runoff Treatment Flow-Based and Volume-Based BMPs
4-3.1.1 Flow-Based Runoff Treatment
Use an approved continuous simulation hydrologic model based on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) Hydrologic Simulation Program – Fortran (HSPF) when
designing runoff treatment BMPs based on flow rate, in accordance with WSDOT Minimum
Requirement 5 in Section 3-3.5. Use MGSFlood for designing flow-based runoff treatment
BMPs in WSDOT right of way unless prior approval to use an alternate (equivalent Ecology
approved) program is given by the Region or HQ Hydraulics Engineer. The design flow rate for
these types of facilities is dependent upon whether the treatment facility is located upstream
or downstream of a flow control facility and whether it is an on-line or off-line facility (see
Figure 4-6).
Figure 4-6 Typical on-line and off-line facility configurations.
Downstream of Flow Control Facilities

If the runoff treatment facility is located downstream of a stormwater flow control facility,
use the full 2-year recurrence interval release rate from the flow control facility, as estimated
by an approved continuous simulation model, to design the treatment facility. For biofiltration
swale design, the 2-year recurrence interval release rate from detention pond is Qwq and is
“online”.
Upstream of Flow Control Facilities: Off-Line

The design flow rate for an off-line treatment facility located upstream of a flow control facility
is the flow rate where 91% of the runoff volume for the developed TDA will be treated, based
on a 15-minute time step, as estimated by an approved continuous simulation model. The bold
horizontal line in Figure 4-7 is an example that shows the 91% runoff volume flow rate. All flows

April 2019
below that line will be treated, and the incremental portion of flow above that line will bypass
the runoff treatment facility.
Use a high-flow bypass (flow splitter) to route the incremental flow in excess of the treatment
design flow rate around the treatment facility. (See Section 5-4.3 for more details on flow
splitters.) It is assumed that flows from the bypass enter the conveyance system downstream
of the treatment facility but upstream of the flow control facility.
Figure 4-7 Example showing calculation of runoff treatment discharge for off-line
treatment facilities—computed as 0.23cfs.
Upstream of Flow Control Facilities: On-Line

On-line runoff treatment facilities do not include a high-flow bypass for flows in excess of the
runoff treatment design flow rate, and all runoff is routed through the facility. The design flow
rate for these types of on-line treatment facilities is the flow rate at which 91% of the runoff
volume occurs, based on a 15-minute time step, as estimated by an approved continuous
simulation model, to be in compliance with Minimum Requirement 5 (see Section 3-3.5).
MGSFlood will determine the hourly runoff treatment design flow rate as the rate
corresponding to the runoff volume that is greater than or equal to 91% of the hourly
runoff volume entering the treatment facility. The simulation model automatically generates
15-minute time step flows based on hourly flows. Because on-line treatment facilities receive
greater volumes of inflow than off-line facilities, the design flow rate corresponding to the 91%
breakpoint is higher than for off-line facilities. The higher design flow rate will result in a slightly
larger treatment facility. Figure 4-8 shows that the facility will receive all the flow, but will
be sized for only 91% runoff volume flow rates, minus the red bars in its calculations for the
developed TDA.

April 2019
Figure 4-8 Example showing calculation of runoff treatment discharge for on-line treatment
facilities—computed as 0.28cfs.
4-3.1.2 Volume-Based Runoff Treatment

Design volume-based runoff treatment BMPs as on-line facilities. In accordance with
Minimum Requirement 5 (see Section 3-3.5), the PEO can use the following methods to derive
the minimum required storage volume:
 Wetpool: An approved continuous simulation hydrologic model based on the U.S.
EPA’s HSPF can be used. MGSFlood must be used on WSDOT projects unless approved
to use an equivalent (Ecology approved) program by the Region or HQ Hydraulics
Engineer. For wetpools, the required total wetpool volume is the 91st percentile,
24-hour runoff volume (no credit is given for infiltration losses) based on the long-
term runoff record generated in the TDA of concern—as predicted based on a
15-minute time step.
 For other volume-based systems such as infiltration and filtration BMPs, the minimum
treatment needed is the storage volume that is necessary to achieve treatment of 91%
of the influent runoff file as predicted using a continuous runoff model and a design
infiltration/filtration rate.
If runoff from the new impervious surfaces and converted pervious surfaces is not separated
from runoff from other surfaces on the project site and/or is combined with run-on from areas
outside of the right of way, the PEO must size volume-based runoff treatment facilities based
on runoff from the entire drainage area. This is because runoff treatment effectiveness can be
greatly reduced if inflows to the facility are greater than the design flows that the facility was
designed to handle. For infiltration facilities, the PEO must infiltrate the 91st percentile, 24-hour
runoff volume within 48 hours.
For a summary of the flow rates and volumes needed for sizing runoff treatment facilities for
various situations, see Table 3-3.

April 2019
4-3.2 Flow Control Volume and Flow Duration-Based BMPs

Use an approved continuous simulation hydrologic model, based on HSPF, for designing flow
control BMPs in accordance with Minimum Requirement 6 (see Section 3-3.6). The PEO must
use MGSFlood for designing flow control BMPs in WSDOT right of way unless prior approval to
use an alternate (equivalent Ecology approved) program is given by the Region or HQ Hydraulics
Engineer. Ensure stormwater discharges match the developed discharge durations to the
predeveloped durations for the range of predeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year
peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. Check the 100-year peak flow for flood control and
prevention of property damage using the continuous simulation model.
Infiltration facilities for flow control must either infiltrate the entire runoff file, or provide
sufficient infiltration so that the predicted overflows match the predeveloped durations for the
range of predeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year
peak. Table 3-6 summarizes the volumes needed for sizing flow control facilities for various
situations.
Refer to the TESCM for additional TESC BMP design criteria.
4-3.3 Exemptions for Flow Control

WSDOT has developed a standardized process to help the designer produce an acceptable
hydraulic analysis for determining flow control exemptions. The process helps the PEO
determine how extensive an analysis needs to be for a particular project. (See Chapter 3 for
a process that has been established for lakes and some river systems.) For further details on
exemptions, flow dispersion, and flow control thresholds, see Minimum Requirement 6 in
Section 3-3.6.
4-3.4 Hydrologic Analysis Methods for Designing BMPs in Western

Washington: HSPF versus SBUH
Refer to the Hydraulics Manual for a detailed discussion.
4-3.5 Hydrologic Analysis Methods and Details for Flow Control and
Runoff Treatment Facility Design
This section presents a detailed discussion for some of the parameters necessary to design
a stormwater flow control facility using an approved continuous simulation model. A basic
overview of the continuous simulation method can be found in Chapter 2 of the WSDOT
Hydraulics Manual.
4-3.5.1 Continuous Simulation Method

WSDOT’s continuous simulation hydrologic model MGSFlood uses the HSPF routines for
computing runoff from rainfall on pervious and impervious land areas. Specifically, the program
is intended to size stormwater detention and infiltration ponds, as well as calculate runoff
treatment flow rates and volumes, to meet the requirements of Ecology’s Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). Do not use it for conveyance

April 2019
design unless the conveyance system is downstream of a stormwater pond. (See Appendix 4A
for a link to a detailed example of this modeling approach and for information on how to obtain
a copy of the public domain program.)
MGSFlood does not include routines for simulating the accumulation and melt of snow, and its
use should be limited to lowland areas where snowmelt is typically not a major contributor to
floods or to the annual runoff volume. In general, these conditions correspond to an elevation
below approximately 1,500 feet. Other notable limitations are included in Section 2 of the
MGSFlood User’s Manual. If a drainage basin falls outside the modeling guidelines above,
contact Region or HQ hydraulics staff for assistance.
Several factors must be considered in the design of a stormwater flow control facility. Based
on the proposed project improvements, the PEO can determine watershed and drainage basins
and apply precipitation and runoff parameters to them. The continuous simulation model uses
this information to simulate the hydrologic conditions at the site and estimate runoff. The PEO
can then size the flow control facility to detain the runoff in a way that closely mimics the
runoff from the predeveloped site conditions. The PEO must verify that the flow control
performance is in accordance with Minimum Requirement 6 in Section 3-3.6. Key elements of
continuous simulation modeling are presented below.
4-3.5.2 Predevelopment Land Cover

The first consideration when modeling project site runoff for flow control BMP sizing is the
amount of pervious cover versus impervious surface in the overall basin. The hydrologic
analysis for flow control to protect a receiving water body is based on mitigating floods and
erosion. The predeveloped land cover assumptions for modeling effective impervious surfaces
for both eastern and western Washington can be found in Chapter 3, Minimum Requirement 6.
(See the Glossary for the definitions of “historic land cover” and “existing land cover.”) For
information on the predeveloped condition for stormwater retrofits, see Section 3-4.
4-3.5.3 Reversion of Existing Impervious Surface Areas

Opportunities may emerge to remove an existing impervious surface due to roadway
realignment, roadway abandonment, or other project condition rendering the existing
impervious surface obsolete. Under these circumstances, reverting an existing impervious
surface to a pervious surface may improve the hydrological functions of an area, thereby
providing a proportional reduction in the amount of runoff generated.
Note: The concept of reversion of existing impervious surfaces only applies to flow control
thresholds (“net-new impervious”; it does not apply to runoff treatment thresholds.
Follow the two-step approach (Full Reversion and Partial Reversion) below to analyze reversion
of existing impervious surface areas for possible flow control benefits for the TDA. Reversion
areas should be documented like Dispersion BMPs and listed in HATS and SWABS.
Step 1: Full Reversion (minimum requirement benefits and flow modeling benefits)

April 2019
The first step involves evaluating the potential for stormwater impacts based on the concept
and application of net-new impervious surface. Applying the net-new impervious surface
concept requires removing existing impervious surface, incorporating soil amendments into the
subsurface layers, and revegetating the area with evergreen trees—unless the predeveloped
condition was prairie, which may be the case in some parts of eastern Washington. In this case,
apply the net-new impervious surface concept at the threshold discharge area (TDA) level when
determining if triggers for flow control (see Minimum Requirement 6) have been exceeded, as
specified in Section 3-3.6, and then only if the following criteria can be met:
 Existing impervious areas removed must be replaced with soils meeting the soil quality
and depth requirements of the soil amendment criteria in Chapter 5.
 The new pervious area must be planted with native vegetation, including evergreen
trees. For further guidelines, see the Roadside Policy Manual and the Roadside
Manual.
 The new pervious area must be designated as a stormwater management area on the
project’s right of way plans or on the drainage plans.
 The new pervious area must be permanently protected from development. If the area
is sited off WSDOT’s right of way, it must be protected with a conservation easement
or some other legal covenant that allows it to remain in native vegetation.
Full reversion can also use the below guidance for flow modeling benefits.
Step 2: Partial Reversion (flow modeling benefits only)
If the PEO concludes that triggers for that particular TDA have been exceeded and any of the
above criteria cannot be fully implemented (only low-lying native vegetation can be planted
due to clear-zone restrictions), then using the net-new impervious surface concept is not
applicable and the PEO must evaluate the reversion area strictly as a land use modification
when modeling for flow control. In this case, if it is feasible and there is an opportunity within
any TDA to rehabilitate an existing impervious area to a pervious area, the PEO should do it,
and apply techniques for flow control modeling (as explained below in Section 4-3.5.5 Modeling
Best Management Practices).
4-3.5.4 Flow Control Modeling Scenarios, Off-Site Flow, and Flow-

Through Areas
The following guidelines primarily apply to meeting flow control requirements and do not
generally apply to meeting runoff treatment requirements unless otherwise noted. These
guidelines deal with how to generally set up a stormwater modeling scenario, what areas need
to be shown in the model, and how to represent the land cover of those areas in the model.
On-site flow generally refers to flows generated from areas within WSDOT right of way that
are also in the project limits. Off-site flow generally refers to flows that are generated outside
of and pass through WSDOT right of way. To minimize stormwater BMP sizes, WSDOT does not
allow, or it significantly restricts, off-site flows from entering into stormwater BMPs.

April 2019
When designing flow control BMPs for a WSDOT project, the PEO shall use the Flow Control
Inputs Spreadsheet to document the type of flow control scenario (Section 4-3.5.4), type of
flow control BMP, and to determine if enough area is being captured to meet flow control
requirements for the TDA. The spreadsheet will help determine the modeling inputs needed
for the flow control BMP design software (MGSFlood). The spreadsheet will help the PEO
capture all of the land cover conversions in the TDA to help set up the predeveloped and
developed modeling scenarios in MGSFlood. The PEO shall include the completed spreadsheets
in the Appendix of the Hydraulic Report. The spreadsheet can be downloaded at:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/HighwayRunoffManual.htm.
The “50 Percent Rule” allows areas not required to receive flow control to pass through a flow
control facility, up to a certain limit. This area is called a flow through area which can be on-site
and/or off-site are. In the stormwater model, flow through areas appear in the predeveloped
and postdeveloped conditions with the same size and land cover. The 100-year peak flow rate
of the flow through area, assuming it is undetained, must be less than 50% of the 100-year peak
flow rate from the area receiving flow control. Otherwise, the PEO would have to reduce the
flow through area until the limit is not exceeded.
Stormwater modeling generally falls under one of three scenarios presented below:
1. Equivalent area option. When the situation arises where an area that needs to be treated
for stormwater flow control and/or runoff treatment cannot physically be captured, the
equivalent area option usually provides a workable solution. The equivalent area option
allows the designer to find an equivalent area that can be treated to provide the same
amount of required runoff treatment and flow control. Equivalent means equal in area,
located within the same TDA, and having an ADT that is greater than or equal to the original
area being traded. The equivalent area should be upgradient of or in close proximity to the
discharge from the new area. The drawing on the left side of Figure 4-9 shows that the flow
control facility needs to be sized for 10 acres of new impervious surface. Using the
equivalent area option, runoff from the existing impervious areas and new impervious areas
would be routed to the facility so that 10 acres within the same TDA drains to the facility.
This concept can also be applied to meeting the minimum requirement for runoff
treatment. Note that the 50 Percent Rule applies for any flow through areas.

April 2019
Existing impervious 10 ac.

= 16 ac. equivalent 16 ac. existing and
area new impervious area
New impervious = 10 ac.
Flow control facility

Figure 4-9 Equivalent area option.
2. On-site, full area option. The second option deals with the situation where on-site and
off-site flows cannot be separated before going into a flow control facility. Note that the
50 Percent Rule does not apply for this option. The PEO must get prior approval from the
Region Hydraulics Engineer before using this option.
The intent of this option is to size the detention facility for just the required amount of area
(effective impervious and converted pervious surfaces) per HRM minimum requirements,
but additionally have both unmitigated on-site and off-site areas flow to the facility (see
Figure 4-10). This will require two separate model runs, as follows:
Model Run #1 – Size the detention facility and the outlet release structure initially using
the drainage area (mitigated) for which flow control is required.
Model Run #2 – Conduct a second modeling exercise that routes flow from unmitigated
on-site and off-site areas through the previously designed pond and outlet structure in
Model Run #1. If the flow can pass through the outlet structure without overtopping the
pond (engaging the emergency overflow structure), it is a successful design. If the pond
does overtop, then the design is inadequate. Consider the following two options for a
successful design:
a. Increase the distance between the design water surface elevation and the
emergency overflow structure by raising the elevation of the emergency overflow
structure and the pond embankment (note that a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard
is required above the pond design water surface elevation).
b. Redesign the outlet structure. Increase the diameter of the riser while keeping the
orifices the same so that the higher flows can be discharged. However, the PEO
must demonstrate that the new outlet structure design could meet the flow
control duration requirement if the pond were only serving the mitigated area (the
initial design condition). This option would provide flow control for all of the
impervious surface draining to the stormwater facility, but the PEO would apply
the duration standards only to the mitigated area, even though there will
be higher flows passing through the facility.

April 2019
The on-site, full area option does not meet a retrofit standard and is applicable for flow
control facilities only. If the pond also provides runoff treatment, size the dead storage
volume for the entire area flowing to the pond. Once Model Run #2 is complete, verify
that the pond still meets the flow control standards for the mitigated area by rerunning
Model Run #1 analysis with the updated pond structure and geometry.
Figure 4-10 shows a detention pond that is initially sized for 10 acres, as required by HRM
Minimum Requirements. After, the full 10 acres plus 22 acres (nonmitigated area)
are modeled to show that the pond does not go into emergency overflow.
Existing impervious
22 ac. nonmitigated area
New impervious = 10 ac.

10 ac. mitigated area
Figure 4-10 Full area option.
3. Point of Compliance option. There may be instances when some of the area that
must be captured to meet the flow control requirement cannot be captured and not
enough equivalent area can be captured to make up the difference. The following option,
as depicted in Figure 4-11, provides a way to meet the overall intent of the flow control
requirement for the total area that must be mitigated while allowing some of the required
area to bypass the flow control facility. The analysis focuses on a point of compliance
downstream where flows from the flow control facility and the bypass area combine.
To use this scenario, all of the following conditions must be met. These criteria apply only
to that portion of the area that must be mitigated and for the area that is bypassed. (See
Appendix 4A for a link to an example that explains how a point of compliance analysis can
be modeled using MGSFlood.)
 Runoff from both the bypass area and the flow control facility converges within
¼ mile downstream of the project site discharge point.
 If the bypass area flows to the point of compliance via overland flow, the
100-year developed peak flow rate from the bypass area will not exceed 0.4 cfs.
If the bypass area flows through a constructed conveyance channel or pipe, then
the 0.4 cfs criteria does not apply.
 Runoff from the bypass area will not create a significant adverse impact to
downstream drainage systems or properties.
 Runoff treatment requirements applicable to the bypass area are met.

April 2019
Existing Impervious = 16 ac. Nonmitigated area

Bypass
area
New Impervious = 10 ac. Mitigated area
¼ mile
downstream
Point of
Compliance
Figure 4-11 Point of Compliance option.
4-3.5.5 Modeling Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Flow control BMP design focuses on infiltrating, dispersing, and, as a last resort, detaining and
discharging stormwater. In contrast to conventional BMPs that receive runoff at one location
on the site, low-impact development (LID) BMPs manage stormwater in small-scale dispersed
facilities located as close to the source of the runoff as possible. Due to the many different
factors affecting both stormwater runoff treatment and flow control, there is no one technique
that will work in all situations. Consider the following list of modeling strategies when modeling
BMPs:
1. General modeling guidelines: In determining the appropriate modeling approach, it is
important to understand how stormwater infiltration, dispersion, and runoff occurred
historically on the site. Determining existing conditions (see Section 4-2) will provide
information on how the site and the surrounding areas currently process stormwater and
how they processed stormwater before any land use changes had altered them. This
information should aid the PEO in determining the best site layout and help choose
appropriate BMPs that will either maintain or restore the natural predeveloped stormwater
processes. Use the following items from the site analysis to determine appropriate
site layouts and BMPs:
 Location and quantity of off-site drainage entering and on-site drainage leaving
the site, if any.
 Slopes throughout the site.
 Locations of existing mature vegetation (trees and shrubs) that has upper soil
profiles for stormwater processing.
 Depth of the seasonal high groundwater table.
 Depths and conditions of the upper soil profile (the A and B horizons), along
with the identification of the lower soils.
2. Modeling and sizing of multiple BMPs with a continuous simulation model is possible with
MGSFlood. In order to incorporate low-impact development (LID) BMPs into the MGSFlood

April 2019
model, Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 have been created to show what land covers to assume for
each BMP. Table 4-1 lists the assumed land covers broken down by outwash or till soils.
Outwash soils would represent soils in Hydrologic Soil Group A and some uncompacted soils
in Hydrologic Soil Group B. Till soils would represent some compacted soils in Hydrologic
Soil Group B, as well as soils in Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D.
Table 4-1 Flow control modeling techniques based on land use.
BMP Type: Assume the TDA is Composed of the Following:

Land Use Outwash Soil Till Soil
Reversion of impervious surface[1] 100% Pasture 100% Pasture
Landscaped with amended soils[2] 100% Pasture 100% Pasture
Permeable pavement without perforated Represented in MGSFlood Represented in MGSFlood
drain pipe[3] internally as its own land use internally as its own land use
Permeable pavement with perforated 100% Impervious 100% Impervious
drain pipe[3]
Reverse slope sidewalks 100% Grass 100% Grass
[1] See Step 2 in Section 4-3.5.3 Reversion of Existing Impervious Surface Areas and Section 5-4.3.2 Soil
Amendments.
[2] See Section 5-4.3.2 Soil Amendments.
[3] See BMP IN.06 Permeable Pavement Surfaces in Chapter 5.
Table 4-2 Flow control modeling techniques for LID BMPs.
BMP Type: Assume the Following Process for the Interim:

Structural Outwash Soil Till Soil
CAVFS, Bioretention Area, Represented in MGSFlood internally Represented in MGSFlood internally
Infiltration Pond, Infiltration as its own land use as its own land use
Trench, Infiltration Vault*
Drywells See BMP IN.05 See BMP IN.05
*These BMPs can be modeled using MGSFlood. Contact the Region Hydraulics Engineer first to obtain procedures,
or access the following link: www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/hydraulics/training.htm
Flow Control Facility Design

Complete flow control facility design by: defining the pond hydraulics in the Pond Hydraulics
Excel Spreadsheet (www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/hydraulics/programdownloads.htm) or using the
optimization routine in MGSFlood. Regardless of the method the PEO uses for sizing a flow
control facility, the detention pond design must take into account the effect that the actual
pond will have as a land use change in the postdeveloped condition. Therefore, the flow control
analysis should also include the pond surface area in the postdeveloped condition as an
impervious surface, since the precipitation falling on the detention pond surface will result in
a runoff volume that will contribute directly to the flow control facility. In the predeveloped
condition, represent the detention pond top surface area by its existing land cover condition.
This will require at least two iterations using MGSFlood to properly size the facility. Use the
water quality flow rates determined from this analysis to size runoff treatment BMPs that are
downstream of the flow control facility. Use a separate model without the pond area for sizing

April 2019
runoff treatment BMPs that are upstream of the flow control facility, since the runoff volume
from this pond area will not contribute to the runoff treatment BMP.
Flow Frequency and Duration Statistics Check

To analyze a stormwater pond’s effectiveness at reducing postdevelopment flows to pre-
developed levels, first route flows through the pond. Compute statistics and create graphs to
show the performance graphically. Assess pond performance by comparing the flow frequency
and duration statistics for the pond outflow with the statistics computed for the predeveloped
condition. The designer must also check the 100-year peak flow for flood control and property
damage. Review the history file and verify that the postdeveloped 100-year peak is less than
the predeveloped 100-year peak flow. If the postdeveloped peak flow is not less than the
predeveloped 100-year peak flow, field-verify that property damage will be prevented.
Expanding an Existing Flow Control Ponds Built to the 1995 HRM

Detention ponds that were designed using the 1995 HRM method (SBUH or single even model)
can be modified to accept additional runoff from roadways that require widening and flow
control. The PEO must do an analysis to determine if expanding the existing detention pond is
possible. Contact the HQ Hydraulics Section for current modeling guidance.
4-4 Eastern Washington Design Criteria

This section provides a discussion of the methodologies used for calculating stormwater runoff
from project sites in eastern Washington. The hydrologic analysis method for most WSDOT
project sites in eastern Washington is either the SCS or SBUH method. The input required
for a single-event hydrograph method includes pervious and impervious areas; times of
concentration; pervious and impervious curve numbers; design storm precipitation; and
a design storm hyetograph. An approved single-event model, such as StormShed3G, should
be used for calculating runoff characteristics. Single-event models are explained in more
detail in Section 4-4.6.
Note: The threshold discharge area concept must also be applied to projects in eastern
Washington (see Section 4-2.5).
4-4.1 Runoff Treatment Flow-Based and Volume-Based BMPs

Runoff treatment BMPs are used to treat the stormwater runoff from pollutant-generating
surfaces and should be designed in accordance with Minimum Requirement 5 (see Section
3-3.5). Some treatment BMPs are sized based on flow rate, while others are sized based on
volume of runoff. For example, a bioswale or proprietary filtration BMP is sized based on flow
rate, whereas an infiltration pond is sized based on runoff volume. Sizing is dependent on flow
rates or volumes, as detailed in the following sections. The criteria for sizing runoff treatment
facilities in eastern Washington are summarized in Table 3-4.

April 2019
4-4.1.1 Flow-Based Runoff Treatment

The design flow rate for these types of facilities is dependent on whether the treatment facility
is located upstream of a flow control facility and whether it is an on-line or off-line facility (see
Section 4-3.1.1 for examples). The PEO can design most treatment facilities as on-line systems,
with flows greater than the runoff treatment design flow rate simply passing through the
facility as overflow, with lesser or no pollutant removal. However, it is sometimes desirable
to restrict flows to treatment facilities and bypass the remaining higher flows around them.
These are called off-line systems.
4-4.1.2 Volume-Based Runoff Treatment

Runoff treatment facilities are designed based on volumes and must be sized for the entire flow
volume that is directed to them. Use the following method to derive the storage volume:
 Wetpool and Infiltration: The NRCS curve number equations (see Hydraulics Manual,
Section 2-6.3) can be used to determine the runoff treatment design storm runoff
volume. This is the volume of runoff from the storm noted in Table 3-4. WSDOT
prefers that StormShed3G, a SBUH-based program, be used for this method to size
volume-based runoff treatment BMPs. The size of the wetpool or infiltration storage
volume is the same whether it is located upstream or downstream of a flow control
facility or coupled with the flow control facility.
If the runoff from the new impervious surfaces and converted pervious surfaces is not
separated from runoff from other surfaces on the project site, and/or is combined with
run-on from areas outside the right of way, the runoff treatment facilities must be sized for
the entire flow volume that is directed to them. Infiltration facilities must infiltrate 6-month,
24-hour total runoff volume within 72 hours after precipitation has ended.
4-4.2 Flow Control BMPs

An approved single-event model must be used when designing flow control BMPs, in
accordance with Minimum Requirement 6 (see Section 3-3.6). WSDOT prefers that
StormShed3G be used for designing flow control BMPs in WSDOT right of way. Stormwater
discharges to surface waters must match developed peak flows to predeveloped peak flows for
the range of predeveloped discharge rates noted in Table 3-7.
When designing flow control BMPs for a WSDOT project, the PEO shall use the Flow Control
Inputs Spreadsheet to document the type of flow control scenario (Section 4-3.5.4), type of
flow control BMP, and to determine if enough area is being captured to meet flow control
requirements for the TDA. The spreadsheet will help determine the modeling inputs needed
for the flow control BMP design software (StormShed3G). The spreadsheet will help the PEO
capture all of the land cover conversions in the TDA to help set up the predeveloped and
developed modeling scenarios in StormShed3G. The PEO shall include the completed
spreadsheets in the Appendix of the Hydraulic Report. The spreadsheet can be downloaded at:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/HighwayRunoffManual.htm.

April 2019
4-4.3 Temporary Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control

Refer to the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Manual for information on designing
construction stormwater BMPs.
4-4.4 Exemptions for Flow Control

WSDOT has developed a standardized process to aid the PEO in producing an acceptable
hydraulic analysis for determining flow control exemptions. The process will help the PEO
determine how extensive an analysis must be for a particular project. (See Chapter 3 for a
process that has been established for lakes and some river systems.) Please refer to Minimum
Requirement 6 (see Section 3-3.6) for further details on exemptions, flow dispersion, and flow
control thresholds.
4-4.5 Hydrologic Analysis Methods for Flow Control and Runoff

Treatment Facility Design
This section presents the general process involved in conducting a hydrologic analysis using
single-event hydrograph methods to (1) design retention/detention/infiltration flow control
facilities and (2) determine runoff treatment volumes. The exact step-by-step method for
entering data into a computer model varies with the different models and is not described
here (see the Documentation or Help modules of the computer program). Predeveloped and
postdeveloped site runoff conditions must be determined and documented in the Hydraulic
Report.
The process for designing retention/detention/infiltration flow control facilities in eastern
Washington is presented below. Review Minimum Requirement 6 (see Section 3-3.6) to
determine all the requirements that will apply to the proposed project.
 1. Determine rainfall depths for the site (see Appendix 4A or WSDOT GIS
Environmental Workbench).2-year – 24-hour
 25-year – 24-hour
 100-year – 24-hour
2. Determine predeveloped soils type and hydrologic group (A, B, C, or D) from SCS maps.
3. Determine predeveloped and postdeveloped pervious and impervious area (in acres)
contributing to the BMP (see Section 4-2.5 for more details). Use the Flow Control Modeling
Inputs Spreadsheet to help determine the predeveloped and postdeveloped basins for the
flow control BMP design modeling. See Section 4-4.2.
4. Determine curve numbers for pervious and impervious area using hydrologic soil groups for
both the predeveloped and postdeveloped conditions (see Section 3-2.6.4, Appendix 4B, and
Equations 4-1 and 4-2).
5. Determine predeveloped and postdeveloped time of concentration. StormShed3G will
do this calculation if the PEO enters length, slope, roughness, and flow type.

April 2019
6. Select storm hyetograph and analysis time interval. Check that the analysis time interval is
appropriate for use with storm hyetograph time increment (see Appendix 4C).
7. For each BMP, input the data obtained above into the computer model for each
predeveloped and postdeveloped storm event.
8. Have the computer model compute the hydrographs.
9. Review the peak flow rate for the predeveloped conditions in the 2-year and 25-year
storm events. The allowable release rate is listed in Table 3-7. Note: In some cases, the
predeveloped 2-year peak flow rate may be 0.00 cfs, which means there is no discharge
from the site. The 2-year postdeveloped flows in this situation must be retained as dead
storage that will ultimately infiltrate or evaporate.
10. Review the peak flow rate for postdeveloped conditions in the 2-year and 25-year storms.
11. Assume the size of the detention facility and input the data into the computer model.
Refer to the volume of the postdeveloped design storm hydrograph computed in Step 8
for a good initial assumption of the detention volume required.
12. Assume the size of the orifice structure and input the data into the computer model.
A single orifice at the bottom of the riser may suffice in some cases. In other projects,
multiple orifices may result in decreased pond sizes. A good approximation would be
to assume a 1-inch-diameter orifice per 0.05 cfs outflow for a typical pond.
13. Use the computer model to route the postdeveloped hydrographs through the detention
facility and orifice structure. Compare the postdeveloped peak outflow rates to allowable
release rates from Step 9.
14. If the postdeveloped peak outflow rates exceed the allowable release rates, adjust
detention volume, orifice size, orifice height, or number of orifices. Keep running the
computer model and adjusting the parameters until the post-developed outflow rates
are less than or equal to the allowable release rates.
15. The PEO must include the pond surface area in the postdeveloped condition as an
impervious surface, since the precipitation falling on the detention pond surface will result
in a runoff volume that will contribute directly to the flow control facility. In the
predeveloped condition, represent the pond top surface area by its existing land cover
condition. This will require at least two iterations using StormShed3G to properly size the
detention facility. Use the Flow Control Modeling Inputs Spreadsheet to show the first
(without pond) and second iteration (with pond) to determine flow control modeling inputs.
See Section 4-4.2.
16. Check the 100-year release rate and compare to predeveloped conditions, and check for
potential property damage.
17. Calculations are complete.
Examples can be found through the web links, which are provided in Appendix 4A.

April 2019
Following is the process for calculating runoff treatment design volumes or flow rates. Note
that the data for many of the initial steps matches the data used in designing retention/
detention flow control facilities described above.
1. Review Minimum Requirement 5 (see Section 3-3.5) to determine all requirements that will
apply to the proposed project.
2. Determine the climatic region and Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) (see Appendix 4A).
3. Determine the rainfall for the site depending on the treatment BMP (see Appendix 4A and
Section 4-4.1).
4. Multiply the rainfall by the appropriate coefficient to determine the 6-month precipitation
(see Appendix 4C).
5. Determine the existing soils type and hydrologic group (A, B, C, or D) from SCS maps (see
Hydraulics Manual, Section 2-6.2).
6. Determine postdeveloped pervious and impervious area (in acres) requiring treatment that
contributes flow to the treatment BMP.
7. Determine curve numbers for pervious and impervious area using the hydrologic soil group
for the postdeveloped condition (see Appendix 4B).
8. Determine postdeveloped time of concentration; StormShed3G computes this when the
PEO inputs length, slope, roughness, and flow type (see the Hydraulics Manual, Section 2-
6.2).
9. If modeling the short-duration storm hyetographs, select the short-duration rainfall type in
StormShed3G. Determine that the analysis time interval is appropriate for use with the
storm hyetograph time increment (see Appendix 4C).
10. Input data obtained from above into StormShed3G for the postdeveloped storm event.
11. Have the model compute the hydrograph.
12. For the design of flow-based treatment BMPs, note that the computed peak flow from
the 6-month, 3-hour hydrograph is the design flow.
13. For the design of volume-based treatment BMPs, note that the computed volume from
the 6-month, 24-hour storm is the design volume.
Examples can be found through the web links, which are provided in Appendix 4A.
4-4.6 Single-Event Hydrograph Method

In eastern Washington, a single-event hydrograph method is typically used for calculation of
runoff, with an integrated set of hydrology design tools developed to address the needs of
conventional engineering practice. There are many single-event models based on the SCS (Soil
Conservation Service) and SBUH methodologies that include level pool routing, pipe and ditch
conveyance system analysis, and backwater computation. Appendix 4A provides a link to the
approved WSDOT single-event model. Single-event models are described in more detail in
Chapter 2 of the WSDOT Hydraulics Manual. Runoff curve numbers and the precipitation data

April 2019
differ considerably in eastern and western Washington (see Appendix 4B). Refer to Appendix C
for a discussion on the eastern Washington design storm events.
4-4.7 Eastern Washington Design Storm Events

When rainfall patterns during storms were analyzed in eastern Washington, it was concluded
that the SCS Type II rainfall does not match the historical records. Two types of storms were
found to be prominent on the east side of the state: short-duration thunder storms (later
spring through early fall seasons) and long-duration winter storms (any time of year, but most
common in the late fall through winter period and the late spring and early summer period).
The short-duration storm normally generates the greatest peak discharges from small
impervious basins; use it to design flow-based BMPs. The long duration storm occurs over
several days, generating the greatest volume; use it to design volume-based BMPs.
When using the long-duration storm, note that eastern Washington has been divided into
the following four climatic regions:
1. East Slope Cascades
2. Central Basin
3. Okanogan, Spokane, Palouse
4. NE and Blue Mountains
The long-duration storms in Regions 2 and 3 are similar to the SCS Type 1A storm. Designers
in those regions can choose to use either the long-duration storm or the SCS Type 1A storm.
Eastern Washington design storm events are further discussed in Appendix 4C.
4-4.8 Modeling Using Low-Impact Development Techniques in

Eastern Washington
Low-impact development (LID) is a BMP application that manages stormwater on a small scale
and disperses it into a facility as close as possible to the source of runoff. This is in contrast to
conventional BMP applications that manage stormwater at one location on the project site.
Design of low-impact development BMP drainage features in eastern Washington requires
a different approach than in western Washington, since the sizing of these systems is based on
a single-event hydrologic model. Adjustments to site runoff parameters are based on the SCS
Curve Numbers (CNs) applicable to the site ground cover and soil conditions. Appendix 4B
presents the adjusted runoff CNs for selected soil and ground cover combinations, reflecting
the reduced values for situations where pervious areas drain to low-impact BMPs. (See the
Hydraulics Manual, Section 2-6.2, for soil type definitions and more discussion on CN values.)
Note: The analysis described in this section typically uses StormShed3G.
Composite custom CN values are calculated using a weighted approach based on individual land
covers, without considering disconnectivity of the site’s impervious surfaces. This approach is
appropriate because it places increased emphasis on minimal disturbance to, and retention of,
site areas that have potential for runoff storage and infiltration. This approach also provides an

April 2019
incentive to save more trees and shrubs and maximize the use of Type A and B soils for
recharge.
If the impervious surface coverage on the site is less than 30% of the site area, the percentage
of unconnected impervious areas within the watershed influences the calculation of the CN
value. For linear transportation systems, evaluate the percentage of impervious surface based
on a “unit length” method, such as a drainage area 30 feet wide that is bound by the crown of
the roadway centerline to the right of way limit.
Use Equation 1 when disconnectivity of impervious areas is not considered.
CN1 A1 + CN 2 A2 ... + CN j A j
CN c =
A1 + A2 ... + A j
(E-1)
where: CNc = Composite Curve Number
Aj = Area of each land cover in ft2
CNj = Curve number for each land cover
Use Equation 2 for sites with less than 30% impervious surface coverage where those
impervious surfaces are disconnected.
 Pimp 
CN c = CN p +   x(98 − CN p )x(1 − 0.5 R )
 100  (E-2)
where: CNc = Composite Curve Number
CNp = Composite pervious Curve Number
Pimp = Percentage impervious site area
R = Ratio of unconnected impervious area to total impervious area*
*Unconnected impervious areas are impervious areas without any direct connection to a
drainage system or other impervious surface.
After the calculation of the CNc is complete, use the SBUH method to determine stormwater
runoff volumes and rates from the unit length of roadway basin (for example, 30-foot width
for continuous roadway prisms with consistent soils/vegetation) for the applicable runoff
treatment and flow control design storms. The PEO can also apply this method to specific
roadway lengths (noncontinuous width) where soils and roadway character vary.
It is extremely important to verify soil infiltration capacity and vegetative cover in all areas
where the SBUH method is to be applied. Determine the natural infiltration capacity of the
roadside area where runoff will be distributed. The WSDOT Materials Lab should provide the
infiltration rates (see Section 4-5.3). If the resultant infiltration rate (Q) of the receiving area is
greater than the peak 25-year design flow rate of the contributing drainage basin, all
stormwater will be infiltrated along the roadside and no further analysis is needed. Perform
the calculation of the infiltrative flow rate (Qi) as follows:

April 2019
Calculation of Infiltrative Flow Rate
F×A
Qi =
in / hr
43200
ft / s (E-3)
where: Qi = Flow rate in cfs
A = Area available for infiltration in ft2
F = Saturated infiltration rate in inches/hour
Should peak flow rates of the contributing drainage basin exceed the infiltrative flow rate of
the receiving roadside area, further analysis is required and some storage of stormwater will
be necessary. In semiarid nonurban areas, formalized detention ponds are usually not the best
solution. Storage of minor to moderate amounts of stormwater runoff can be accomplished by
using natural depression storage. This includes depressions in the roadside topography, swales,
and even roadway ditches. Each of these features can accommodate stormwater storage and
allow for releasing runoff through infiltration over a longer time scale.
To determine the needed runoff retention volume, subtract the continuous saturated
infiltration rate from the 25-year storm hydrograph produced from the SBUH method. The
resulting quantity represents the runoff volume that needs to be detained until infiltration can
“catch up” with the runoff. Check to see if this volume can be accommodated in the existing
roadside landscape or roadway ditches. If roadside hydraulic conveyance capacity allows, the
PEO may place check dams in ditches to detain stormwater in noncentralized locations. This
method for small-scale flow detention will require a site-specific analysis; a continuous linear
approach may not be valid.
4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria and LID Feasibility

LID is a stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic predisturbance
hydrologic processes of dispersion, infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation, and
transpiration by emphasizing conservation and use of on-site natural features, site planning,
and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design.
Road and highway projects rely on dispersion and infiltration to meet LID requirements.
Infiltration facilities provide stormwater flow control by containing excess runoff in storage
facilities, then percolating runoff into the surrounding soil. Infiltration facilities can provide
runoff treatment and flow control, but to do so requires certain site and soil characteristics.
Sections 4-5.1 and 4-5.2 provide a detailed discussion of the site and soil characteristics
needed to determine which types of infiltration facilities are most appropriate for the site.
Surface infiltration BMP designs and subsurface infiltration BMP designs follow different
criteria. Infiltration ponds, infiltration vaults, infiltration trenches, bioinfiltration ponds,
dispersion, bioretention areas, continuous inflow compost amended biofiltration swales
(CICABS), and CAVFS are considered surface infiltration BMPs and are based on infiltration
rates. In order to compute these infiltration rates, make a determination of the soil saturated
hydraulic conductivity. Infiltration trenches designed as an end-of-pipe application (with

April 2019
underdrain pipe) and drywells are considered subsurface infiltration BMPs and regulated by the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Rule, which is intended to protect underground sources of
drinking water. As a result, subsurface infiltration BMPs are known as underground injection
facilities and designed dependent on the treatment capacity of the subsurface soil conditions or
have pretreatment BMPs to pretreat the stormwater prior to injection.
The sections that follow provide detailed information on site suitability criteria, LID feasibility,
determination of saturated hydraulic conductivity, determination of infiltration rates, and
underground injection facilities.
4-5.1 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC)

This section specifies the site suitability criteria that must be considered for siting infiltration
treatment systems. When a site investigation reveals that any of the following eight applicable
criteria cannot be met, the PEO must implement appropriate mitigation measures so that the
infiltration facility will not pose a threat to safety, health, or the environment.
For infiltration treatment, site selection, and design decisions, a qualified engineer with
geotechnical and hydrogeological experience should prepare a geotechnical and
hydrogeological report. A comparable professional may also conduct the work if it is under the
seal of a registered Professional Engineer (PE). The PEO may use a team of certified or
registered professionals in soil science, hydrogeology, geology, and other related fields.
To design infiltration facilities, follow SSC 1, when applicable, in addition to those SSCs
described in the infiltration BMP descriptions in Chapter 5. Figures 4-12 through 4-15 are
flow charts of the Site Suitability Criteria, and the PEO can use them to determine the suitability
of a site for infiltration facilities. Please note there are addition considerations for LID BMPs in
Section 4-5.2.
SSC 1 – Setback Requirements

Setback requirements for infiltration facilities are generally provided in local regulations,
Uniform Building Code requirements, or other state regulations. Use the following setback
criteria unless otherwise required by Critical Area Ordinance or other jurisdictional authorities.
 In general, locate infiltration facilities 20 feet downslope and 100 feet upslope from
building foundations and 50 feet or more behind the top of slopes steeper than 15%.
Request a geotechnical report for the project that would evaluate structural site
stability impacts due to extended subgrade saturation and/or head loading of the
permeable layer, including the potential impacts to downgradient properties
(especially on hills with known side-hill seeps). Ensure the report addresses the
adequacy of the proposed BMP locations and recommend any adjustments to the
setback distances provided above, either greater or smaller, based on the results
of this evaluation.
 Set infiltration facilities back at least 100 feet from drinking water wells, septic tanks
or drain fields, and springs used for public drinking water supplies. Ensure infiltration
facilities upgradient of drinking water supplies and within 1-, 5-, and 10-year time of

April 2019
travel zones comply with health department requirements (Washington Wellhead

Protection Program, WAC 246-290-135).
 Consider additional setbacks if roadway deicers or herbicides are likely to be present
in the influent to the infiltration system.
 Locate infiltration facilities at least 20 feet from a native growth protection easement
(NGPE).
 Locate infiltration facilities a minimum of 5 feet from any property line and vegetative
buffer. The PEO may increase this distance based on permit conditions required by the
local government.
SSC 2 – Seepage Analysis and Control

Determine whether there would be any adverse effects caused by seepage zones near
building foundations, roads, parking lots, or sloping sites. Infiltration of stormwater is not
allowed on or upgradient of a contaminated site where infiltration of even clean water can
cause contaminants to mobilize. If contaminants are known or suspected to be on site, do
not use infiltration facilities without the concurrence of the Region Hydraulics Engineer and the
ESO Hazardous Materials Unit. A WSDOT geotechnical engineer may also be consulted if
determined to be needed by the Region Hydraulics Engineer.
Sidewall seepage is not usually a concern if seepage occurs through the same stratum as the
bottom of the facility. However, for engineered soils or soils with very low permeability, the
potential to bypass the treatment soil through the sidewalls may be significant. In those
cases, the sidewalls must be lined, either with an impervious liner or with the same depth
of treatment soil as on the pond bottom, to prevent seepage of untreated flows through
the sidewalls.
SSC 3 – Groundwater Protection Areas

A site is not suitable if the infiltrated stormwater will cause a violation of the Ecology water
quality standards for groundwaters (WAC 173-200). Consult local jurisdictions to determine
applicable pretreatment requirements and whether the site is located in an aquifer-sensitive
area, a sole-source aquifer, or a wellhead protection zone.
SSC 4 – Depth to Bedrock, Water Table, or Impermeable Layer

The base of all infiltration basins or trench systems must be ≥ 5 feet above the seasonal high
water mark, bedrock (or hardpan), or other low-permeability layer. Consider a separation down
to 3 feet if the design of the overflow and/or bypass structures is judged by the site professional
to be adequate to prevent overtopping and meet the SSC specified in this section.
SSC 5 – Soil Infiltration Rate

For runoff treatment infiltration facilities, the maximum final infiltration rate is 3.0 inches per
hour. Calculate the final infiltration rate as described in Appendix 4D, Section 4D-6. This
infiltration rate is typical for soil textures that have sufficient physical and chemical properties

April 2019
for adequate treatment, particularly for soluble pollutant removal. The soil should have
characteristics similar to those specified in SSC 7. Using Ecology’s Default Bioretention Soil Mix
satisfies the SSC5 requirement.
SSC 6 – Drawdown Time

For western Washington, the 91% percentile, 24-hour runoff volume must be infiltrated within
48 hours. Runoff treatment in eastern Washington is designed to completely drain ponded
runoff within 72-hours in order to meet the following objectives:
 Enhance the biodegradation of pollutants and organics in the soil.
 Aerate vegetation and soil to keep the vegetation healthy and prevent anoxic
conditions in the treatment soil.
In general, this drawdown requirement is applicable only if it is intended for the infiltration
facility to provide treatment. It is also used to address storage capacity if a single-event
hydrograph model is used. Drawdown time criteria are not applicable for infiltration
facilities designed for flow control in western Washington.
SSC 7 – Soil Physical and Chemical Suitability for Treatment

Consider soil texture and design infiltration rates, along with the physical and chemical
characteristics specified below, to determine whether the soil is adequate for removing the
target pollutants. Carefully consider the following soil properties in making this determination:
 Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the treatment soil must be >5 milliequivalents
CEC/100 g dry soil (U.S. EPA Method 9081). Consider empirical testing of soil sorption
capacity, if practicable. Ensure soil CEC is sufficient for expected pollutant loadings,
particularly heavy metals. CEC values of >5 meq/100g are expected in loamy sands
(Buckman and Brady 1969). Consider lower CEC content if it is based on a soil loading
capacity determination for the target pollutants that is accepted by the
local jurisdiction.
 Depth of soil used for infiltration treatment must be a minimum of 18 inches,
except for designed, vegetated infiltration facilities with an active root zone, such
as CICABS and CAVFS (see BMP description in Chapter 5 for maximum soil depths).
Depth of soils used for infiltration runoff treatment below IN.06 Permeable Pavement
Surfaces that are PGIS may be reduced to 1.0 foot if the permeable pavement does
not accept run-on from other surfaces.
 The organic matter content of the treatment soil (ASTM D 2974) can increase the
sorptive capacity of the soil for some pollutants. The site professional should evaluate
whether the organic matter content is sufficient for control of the target pollutant(s).
The minimum organic content is 1.0 percent.
 Do not use waste fill materials as infiltration soil media, nor should the PEO place such
media over uncontrolled or nonengineered fill soils.
 Use engineered soils to meet the design criteria in this chapter and the runoff
treatment targets in Table 3-1. (See Soil Amendments in Chapter 5.)

April 2019
SSC 8 – Cold Climate and Impacts of Roadway Deicers

 For cold climate design criteria (snowmelt/ice impacts), refer to the D. Caraco and
R. Claytor document, Stormwater BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates, U.S. EPA,
December 1997.
 Consider the potential impact of roadway deicers on potable water wells in the siting
determination. Implement mitigation measures if infiltration of roadway deicers can
cause a violation of groundwater quality standards. For assistance, contact Region or
HQ hydraulics staff.
Is the facility located:

20 feet downslope and/or 100 Perform a geotechnical analysis that
feet upslope of buildings, and Yes evaluates structural site stability issues,
50 feet or more behind the top of See SSC-1 for more information.
slopes steeper than 15%?
No Yes Does geotechnical report
support locating a facility at this Site is not
No
Is the facility at least 100 feet location? suitable
from drinking water wells, septic
tanks or drain fields, and springs
Site is not
used for public drinking No
suitable
supplies?
Yes
S Is the facility upgradient of Facility must Can facility be

S drinking water supplies AND comply with designed to comply
Yes
C within the 1-, 5-, and 10-year WAC 246-290- with WAC 246-290-
- time travel zone? 135 135? No
1
No Yes
Are roadway deicers or Consider Can additional

Site is not
herbicides likely present in the Yes additional setbacks be No
suitable
influent? setbacks accomodated?
No Yes
Move or adjust
Is facility located at least 20 feet Can additional
facility to Site is not
from a native growth protection No setbacks be No
provide 20 ft. suitable
easement? accomodated?
setback
Yes Yes
Move or adjust
Is facility located at least 5 feet Can additional
facility to Site is not
from property line and vegetated No setbacks be No
provide 5 ft. suitable
buffer? accomodated?
setback
Yes Yes
Go to Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) -2

(next page)
Figure 4-12 Soil Suitability Criteria 1 Flow Chart.

April 2019
Does facility cause any adverse effects to

building foundations, parking lots, or sloping Yes Site not suitable
sites?
No
S Consult Region NO
S Hydraulics Engineer Concurrence
Is facility located on or up-gradient of a Yes
C and ESO Haz. Mat. obtained?
contaminated site?
- Unit for Concurrence
2
No Yes
Line side slopes with

Is the bottom of the pond engineered of low
Yes impervious liner or at least
permeability soils?
18" of treatment soil
No
Will the facility cause a violation of Ecology

Water Quality Standards for ground water Yes Site not suitable
S
(WAC 173-200)?
S
C No
-
3 Is the site located in an aquifer-sensitive Consult local jurisdiction for
area, a sole source aquifer, or wellhead Yes applicable pretreatment
protection zone? requirements.
Can pretreatment
No Site not suitable No
requirements be met?
Yes
Is the bottom of the facility ≥ 5 feet above Site is unsuitable unless there is a
the seasonal high-ground water depth, No separation of at least 3 feet and an
bedrock, hardpan, or other low permeability overflow or by-pass structure is
S layer? provided to prevent overtopping and
S meet SSC provided in this section.
C
-
4 Yes
Is separation ≥ 3 feet and
No Site not suitable
other criteria met?
Yes
Go to Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) -5
(next page)
Figure 4-13 Soil Suitability Criteria 2-4 Flow Chart.

April 2019
Is this a runoff treatment only facility in E.

WA or W. WA Is the final infiltration rate of the soil ≤ 3
OR inches per hour? Using Ecology’s
a combination runoff treatment and flow Yes Default Bioretention Soil Mix also is
control facility in E. WA or W. WA considered to be meet the maximum
OR allowable final infiltration rate.
S a flow control infiltration only facility in E.
S WA
C
Yes
- No
5
Site is for infiltration flow No
control facility in W. WA – go
to SSC-8
Site not suitable for runoff

treatment
Is the site in Eastern Is this a combination runoff

No
WA? treatment/flow control
facility?
Yes
Yes No
Can the pond
Can the site infiltrate the 91st
completely drain in Is the site in Site not
percentile, 24 hour storm
72 hours? Eastern WA? suitable
within 48 hours (Western WA)
S
No
S
C Yes
No Go to
- No SSC-8
6 Yes Yes
Site not Site not

suitable suitable Can the pond
completely drain in
72 hours?
No Yes
Go to Site Suitability Criteria Site not Go to

(SSC) – 7 (next page) suitable SSC-8

April 2019
Is the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of Can the addition of organic matter,
the soil ≥ 5 milliequivalents CEC/100 grams No such as compost or wood chips,
of dry soil per USEPA Method 9081? increase the CEC to ≥ 5
Yes Yes No
S Is this a pervious pavement application Site not suitable for

S used for runoff treatment of PGIS surfaces Is the suitable soil No treatment
C without run-on from other surfaces? Yes depth ≥ 12 inches?
-
No Yes
7
Is this a CAVS or CICABS BMP? Yes See BMP design descriptions in
Chapter 5 for maximum soil
No depths
Is the suitable soil depth ≥ 18 inches?
No
Can suitable soil depth be Site not suitable

No
increased to ≥ 18 inches?*
Yes
Yes
Is the organic content of the
soil >1%
No Site not suitable
Yes
Refer to Stormwater Design for

Is the facility in a cold climate with snow
Yes Cold Climates, D. Caraco and R.
melt and ice factors and frozen ground?
Clayton, USEPA, Dec. 1997
Can design be modified to

S No No Site not suitable
work?
S
C Yes
- Are roadway deicers used on the area No
Consult with Region or HQ
8 draining to the facility Yes Hydraulics and Stormwater staff
AND for assistance
Are potable water wells located in the area?
Can groundwater
No
quality standards be
met?
Site is suitable for infiltration facilities. Yes
* Consult with soil scientist or other soil professional to
determine amendments needed to create adequate
suitable soil depths.

April 2019
4-5.2 LID Feasibility

There are many types of LID and infiltration BMPs listed in Chapter 5. They include natural
and engineered dispersion, compost-amended vegetated filter strips (CAVFS), continuous
inflow compost-amended biofiltration swales (CICABS), media filter drains (MFD), bioretention
areas, bioinfiltration ponds, natural depression areas, infiltration ponds, vaults, trenches, and
drywells. Each BMP has its own distinct set of LID infeasibility criteria that is listed in the BMP
descriptions in Chapter 5. There are some LID infeasibility criteria that are shared among all
of the BMPs; they are listed below.
The following criteria describe conditions that make LID BMPs infeasible to meet the LID
requirement per the BMP selection process in Section 5-3. It is important to note that even
though a LID BMP is infeasible to meet the LID requirement, the PEO can still design and use
the LID BMP to meet the runoff treatment and/or flow control requirement for the TDA. Base
the citation of any of the below infeasibility criteria on an evaluation of site-specific conditions
and document in the project’s Hydraulic Report via the LID Feasibility Checklist, along with any
applicable written recommendations from an appropriate licensed professional (e.g., engineer,
geologist, hydrogeologist). Refer to Appendix 4A for a link to the LID Feasibility Checklist.
Scoping-Level Feasibility
 Does the area have groundwater that drains into an erosion hazard or landslide hazard
area?
 Does the only area available for siting the LID BMP threaten the safety or reliability of
preexisting: underground utilities, underground storage tanks, structures, or road or
parking lot surfaces?
 Are there houses or buildings in the project area that may have basements that might
be threatened by infiltrating stormwater from the area?
 Would the LID BMP be within setbacks from structures as established by the local
government with jurisdiction?
 Is the land for the LID BMP within an area designated as an erosion hazard or landslide
hazard?
 Is the LID BMP within 50 feet from the top of slopes that are greater than 20% and
over 10 feet of vertical relief?
 Is the proposed site on property with known soil or groundwater contamination
(typically federal Superfund sites or state cleanup sites under the Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA))?
 Is the proposed LID BMP within 100 feet of an area known to have deep soil
contamination?
 Would the LID BMP be within any area where it would be prohibited by an approved
cleanup plan under the state Model Toxics Control Act or federal Superfund law, or
an environmental covenant under Chapter 64.70 RCW?

April 2019
 Is the LID BMP within 100 feet of a closed or active landfill?

 Is the LID BMP within 100 feet of a drinking water well or a spring used for drinking
water supply?
 Is the LID BMP within 10 feet of a small on-site sewage disposal drain field, including
reserve areas, and grey water reuse systems? For setbacks from a “large on-site
sewage disposal system,” see Chapter 246-272B WAC.
 Is the LID BMP within 10 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting
underground pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is 1,100 gallons or
less OR within 100 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting underground
pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is greater than 1,100 gallons?
An underground storage tank means any tank used to store petroleum products,
chemicals, or liquid hazardous wastes of which 10% or more of the storage volume,
including the volume in the connecting piping system, is beneath the ground surface.
Project-Level Feasibility
 Is there insufficient space for a LID BMP within the existing public right of way on
public road projects?
 Does the only area available for siting the LID facility not allow for a safe overflow
pathway to the municipal separate storm sewer system?
 Is the LID BMP not compatible with surrounding drainage system as determined by
the local government with jurisdiction (e.g., project drains to an existing stormwater
collection system whose elevation or location precludes connection to a properly
functioning bioretention facility)?
 Is the LID BMP within 10 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting
underground pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is 1,100 gallons or
less OR within 100 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting underground
pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is greater than 1,100 gallons?
An underground storage tank means any tank used to store petroleum products,
chemicals, or liquid hazardous wastes of which 10% or more of the storage volume,
including the volume in the connecting piping system, is beneath the ground surface.
 Does a professional geotechnical/geologic evaluation recommend infiltration not
be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion, slope failure, or downgradient
flooding?
 Would infiltrating water threaten shoreline structures such as bulkheads?
 Does field testing indicate that LID BMP areas have a measured (a.k.a., initial) native
soil saturated hydraulic conductivity less than 0.30 inches per hour?
 For properties with known soil or groundwater contamination (e.g., federal Superfund
sites), does groundwater modeling indicate infiltration will likely increase or change
the direction of the migration of pollutants in the groundwater?

April 2019
 Properties with known soil or groundwater contamination (e.g., federal Superfund

sites), where surface soils have been found to be contaminated, need to be removed
within 10 horizontal feet from the infiltration area/LID BMP. Would there be any
problems keeping this 10 horizontal foot distance from contaminated surface soils?
 A minimum vertical separation of 1 foot is required between the seasonal high water
table, bedrock, or other impervious layer to the bottom of the LID BMP that would
serve a drainage area that is: (1) less than 5,000 sq. ft. of pollution-generating
impervious surface, (2) less than 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface, and (3) less
than ¾ acres of pervious surface. Are there any problems achieving this separation?
 A minimum vertical separation of 3 feet is required between the seasonal high water
table, bedrock or other impervious layer to the bottom of the LID BMP that: (1) would
serve a drainage area that meets or exceeds 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating
impervious surface, OR 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface, OR ¾ acres of pervious
surfaces; and (2) cannot reasonably be broken down into amounts smaller than
indicated in (1). Are there any problems achieving this separation?
4-5.3 Infiltration Rates, Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, and

Hydraulic Gradients
Once a site is determined suitable for infiltration, the PEO can begin the infiltration design. The
sizing of an infiltration BMP is dependent on the infiltration rate of the soils over which the
BMP is located. Appendix 4D discusses the various ways to determine an infiltration rate.
Infiltration rates are based on two components: the soil’s saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)
and the hydraulic gradient. An overview of the infiltration design procedure is provided in
Figures 4D-3 and 4D-4 in Appendix 4D. The focus of these design procedures is to size the
facility. For other geotechnical aspects of the facility design, including geotechnical stability of
the facility and constructability requirements, see Chapter 5 and the Design Manual. A
multidisciplinary approach is required to design infiltration facilities, as described in Chapter 2.
Section 4D-4 in Appendix 4D describes the three approaches for determining the saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of soils.
1. 1 Perform grain size analyses and use correlations between grain size distribution and
Ksat.
2. Conduct Ksat laboratory tests to measure Ksat directly for specimens taken from the soil
column during the geotechnical subsurface field investigation.
3. Use field tests to measure Ksat in-situ.
WSDOT mainly uses the modified Slichter methodology to that was developed from recent
WSDOT research to develop the Ksat to design:
 Bio-infiltration pond (BMP IN.01)
 Infiltration pond (BMP IN.02)
 Infiltration trench (BMP IN.03)

April 2019
 Infiltration vault (BMP IN.04)

 Underlying soils of CAVFS (BMP RT.02)
 Drywell (BMP IN.05)
 Natural dispersion (BMP FC.01)
 Engineered dispersion (BMP FC.02)
Please note at this time, the use of the optimized Slichter method and other equations
developed in Allen 2017 are only for use by WSDOT on WSDOT projects. The optimized
Slichter method and other equations developed in Allen 2017 are not currently within the
SWMMWW, SWMMEW, or other Ecology approved equivalent manuals. These Manuals
are intended to provide jurisdictions with technically sound stormwater management
practices which are presumed to protect water quality and instream habitat, and meet
the stated environmental objectives of the regulations described in the SWMMWW and
SWMMEW.
Jurisdictions always have the option of not following the stormwater management
practices in the SWMMWW, SWMMEW, or other Ecology approved equivalent manuals.
However, if a project proponent chooses not to follow the practices in those Manuals
then the project proponent may be required to individually demonstrate and document
that the project will not adversely impact water quality by collecting and providing
appropriate supporting data to show that the alternative approach is protective of water
quality and satisfies State and federal water quality laws. Ecology, EPA, or a third party
may review such documentation to ensure that they satisfy those laws.
Refer to Appendix 4D for more information on how to determine Ksat, the hydraulic gradient,
and the infiltration rate.
4-5.4 Underground Injection Wells

Infiltration is one of the preferred methods for disposing of excess stormwater in order to
preserve natural drainage systems in Washington. Subsurface infiltration is regulated by the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Rule, which is intended to protect underground sources
of drinking water (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-218). By definition, a UIC
well includes a constructed subsurface fluid distribution system or a dug hole that is deeper
than the largest surface dimension. For the purposes of this section, infiltration systems include
drywells (BMP IN.05) and infiltration trenches with perforated underdrain pipes (BMP IN.03)
designed to discharge stormwater directly into the ground. The following are not regulated as
stormwater underground injection facilities:
 Infiltration trenches that do not include perforated underdrain pipes
 Infiltration vaults (BMP IN.04)
 Buried pipe and/or tile networks that serve to collect water and discharge that water
to a conveyance system or a surface water
 Any facilities that are designed to receive fluids other than stormwater

April 2019
For UIC wells designed in western Washington, see Ecology’s SWMMWW Volume I Chapter 4 or
for UIC wells designed in eastern Washington, see Ecology’s SWMMEW Chapter 1.4.5 for
guidance and design criteria for protection of groundwate.
4-6 Wetland Hydroperiods

An important consideration in the stewardship of certain wetland functions is the protection
and control of an existing wetland’s hydroperiod. The hydroperiod is the pattern of fluctuation
of water depth and the frequency and duration of water levels on the site. This includes the
duration and timing of drying in the summer. A hydrologic assessment is useful to measure or
estimate elements of the hydroperiod under existing predeveloped and anticipated
postdeveloped conditions.
4-6.1 Western Washington

This assessment follows Ecology’s 2012 SWMMWW Appendix I-D Guide Sheet 3B. See
Minimum Requirement 7 to determine which types of wetlands and under what scenarios is a
hydroperiod analysis required. MGSFlood is currently programmed to run the hydroperiod
analysis. The PEO shall determine the entire tributary area going into the wetland and model
that area along with the project/TDA areas going into the wetland in the predeveloped and
postdeveloped scenarios. The two criteria being checked are:
Criterion 1: total volume of water into a wetland during a single precipitation event should not
be more than 20% higher or lower than the predeveloped volumes.
Modeling algorithm for Criterion 1
1. Daily Volumes can be calculated for each day over 50 years for predeveloped and
postdeveloped scenarios. Volumes are to be calculated at the inflow to the wetland or
the upslope edge where surface runoff, interflow, and ground water are assumed to
enter.
2. Calculate the average of Daily Volume for each day for predeveloped and
postdeveloped scenarios. There will be 365 values for the predeveloped scenario and
365 for the postdeveloped scenario to compare.
Example calculation for each day in a year (e.g., April 1):
• If you use 50 years of precipitation data, there will be 50 values for April 1.
Calculate the average of the 50, April 1, Daily Volumes for predeveloped and
postdeveloped scenarios.
• Compare the average Daily Volumes for predeveloped versus postdeveloped
scenarios for each day. The average postdeveloped Daily Volume for April 1 must
be within +/- 20% of the predeveloped Daily Volume for April 1.
3. Check compliance with the 20% criterion for each day of year. Criterion 1 is
met/passed if none of the 365 postdeveloped daily volumes varies by more than 20%
from the predeveloped daily volumes for each day.

April 2019
Criterion 2: Total volume of water into a wetland on a monthly basis should not be more than
15% higher or lower than the predeveloped volumes.
This needs to be calculated based on the average precipitation for each month of the year. This
criterion is especially important for the summer months when a development may reduce the
monthly flows rather than increase them because of reduced infiltration and recharging of
ground water.
Modeling algorithm for Criterion 2
1. Monthly Volumes can be calculated for each calendar month over 50 years for the
predeveloped and postdeveloped scenarios. Volumes are to be calculated at the inflow
to the wetland or the upslope edge where surface runoff, interflow, and ground water
are assumed to enter.
2. Calculate the average of Monthly Volume for each calendar month for the
predeveloped and postdeveloped scenarios.
Example calculation for each calendar month in a year (e.g., April):
• If you use 50 years of precipitation data, there will be 50 values for the month
of April. Calculate the average of the 50, April, Monthly Volumes for the
predeveloped and postdeveloped scenarios.
• Compare the Monthly Volumes for the predeveloped versus postdeveloped
scenarios. Postdeveloped Monthly Volume for April must be within +/- 15% of
the predeveloped Monthly Volume for April.
3. Check compliance with the 15% criterion for each calendar month of year. Criterion 2
is met/passed if none of the 12 postdeveloped Monthly Volumes varies by more than
15% from the predeveloped Monthly Volumes for every month.
If it is expected that the limits stated above could be exceeded, consider the following
strategies to reduce the volume of surface flows:
• Reducing of the level of development by reducing the amount of impervious surface
and/or increasing the retention of natural forest cover.
• Disperse any channelized flows to the wetland into sheet flow and possibly model the
sheet flow using the VFS routine in MGSFlood.
• Increasing infiltration through the use of LID BMPs and LID principles.
• Increasing storage capacity for surface runoff.
• Using selective runoff bypass around the wetland. Bypassed flow must still comply with
other applicable stormwater requirements.
All hydroperiod analyses shall be placed in the hydraulic report for the project.

April 2019
4-6.2 Eastern Washington

The goal is to not alter the wetland’s natural hydroperiod. This requires the control of input
flows such that the wetland is within certain elevations at different times of the year and that
short-term elevation changes are within the desired limits. If the amount of stormwater runoff
to a wetland is increased because of land conversion from native vegetation to impervious
areas, it may be necessary to bypass some water around the wetland in the wet season.
Bypassed stormwater must still meet flow control and runoff treatment requirements
applicable to the receiving water. If however, the wetland was fed by local ground water
elevations during the dry season, the impervious surface additions and the bypassing practice
may cause variations from the dry season elevations. The PEO shall contact the Region Biology
Program and RHE to determine the appropriate limits of water level fluctuations allowed in the
wetland. See HRM Minimum Requirement 7 for more details on wetlands protection.
Additional Ecology wetland regulation and permitting resources are found at the following web
page: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands/Regulations
4-7 Closed Depression Analysis

This BMP has been moved to the HRM Category 1 BMPs document found here:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/FAQ.htm
4-8 References
Allen, T.M., 2017, Stormwater Infiltration in Highway Embankments – Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity Estimation for Uncompacted and Compacted Soils, WSDOT Research Report WA-
RD 872-1, 161 pp.
Brater, E.F. and H.W. King. 1976. Handbook of Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Company, New York.
Buckman, Harry O. and Brady, Nyle C., The Nature of Properties of Soils, Collier Macmillian Ltd.,
Toronto, Ontario, 1969.
Chow, V.T. 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Daughtery, R.L. and J.B. Franzini. 1977. Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ecology, Washington State Department of. Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern
Washington. September 2004.
Ecology, Washington State Department of. Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington. August 2005.
King County Surface Water Management Division. 1999. King County Runoff Timeseries
(KCRTS), Computer Software Reference Manual, Version 4.4. January 1999.
King County. Washington Surface Water Design Manual. September 1998.

April 2019
“Low-Impact Development Design Strategies, An Integrated Design Approach,” prepared by

Prince George’s County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and
Planning Divisions. June 1999.
Maryland Stormwater Manual.
Massman, Joel, Carolyn Butchart, and Stephanie Stolar. 2003. University of Washington, Final
Research Report-T1803, Task 12, “Infiltration Characteristics, Performance, and Design of
Stormwater Facilities.”
Massmann, J.W. April 2004. An Approach For Estimating Infiltration Rates For Stormwater
Infiltration Drywells, WSDOT, Agreement Y-7717 Task Order AU.
Massmann, J.W. October 2003. A Design Manual for Sizing Infiltration Ponds. WSDOT, WA-RD
578.2. 61 pp.
Miller, J.F., R.H. Frederick, and R.S. Tracey. 1973. NOAA Atlas 2, Precipitation Frequency Atlas
of the Western United States, Volume IX-Washington. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, National
Weather Service. Washington D.C.
Oregon Climate Service. 1997. Mean Annual Precipitation Maps for Western United States,
prepared with PRISM Model for NRCS, Corvallis, Oregon.
Pierce County Stormwater Manual.
Pitt, R., S.E. Chen, S. Clark, J. Lantrip, C.K. Ong, and J. Voorhees. 2003. “Infiltration Through
Compacted Urban Soils and Effects on Biofiltration Design,” Stormwater and Urban Water
Systems Modeling, Models, and Applications to Urban Water Systems, Ed. – W. James, CHI,
Guelph, Ontario, Vol. 11. pp. 217-252.
Schaefer, M.G. 1981. “Shaft Spillways, Fundamental Hydraulics and Hydrology of Dam Design.”
University of Missouri Short Course, available through Dam Safety Section, Washington
Department of Ecology. May 1981.
Schaefer, M.G. and B.L. Barker. 2002. “Extended Precipitation Time Series for continuous
hydrological modeling in Western Washington,” prepared for Washington State Department
of Transportation by MGS Consulting Inc. April 2002.
Schaefer, M.G. and B.L. Barker. 2003. MGS Flood – Proprietary Version User Manual, prepared
for Washington State Department of Transportation by MGS Consulting Inc., Version 2.2. March
2003.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987. Design of Small Dams. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 3rd edition.
USDA-SCS. 1986. Technical Release No. 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watershed.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran HSPF User Manual for Release 9. EPA
600/3-84-066. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. June 1984.

April 2019
APPENDIX 4A
Web Links
Appendix 4A Web Links
Downstream Analysis Guidance

Provided in the Hydraulics Manual, Chapter 4:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/hydraulics/default.htm
Low-Impact Development (LID) Feasibility Checklist

Provides a checklist for documentation and guidance on how to model LID.
Low-Impact Development (LID) Modeling

Provides guidance on how to model LID stormwater BMPs.
www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/hydraulics/training.htm
MGSFlood CAVFS Example

MGSFlood Training Example and Users Manual

StormShed Training Example

Time-to-Drain Infiltration Pond and Trench Spreadsheet

Washington 2-hour Isopluvial Map, January 2006

Washington 24-hour Isopluvial Maps, January 2006

Washington Mean Annual Precipitation Map


April 2019
APPENDIX 4B
TR-55 Curve Number Tables

Appendix 4B List of Tables
Table 4B-1 Hydrologic soil series for selected soils in Washington State. ................. 4B-1
Table 4B-2 Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban, and rural areas
(western Washington). ........................................................................... 4B-4
Table 4B-3 Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban, and rural areas
(eastern Washington). ............................................................................ 4B-5
Table 4B-4 Curve number conversions for different antecedent moisture conditions
(case Ia = 0.2 S). ..................................................................................... 4B-6
Table 4B-5 “n” and “k” values used in time calculations for hydrographs. ............... 4B-7
Table 4B-6 Values of the roughness coefficient, “n.” ............................................... 4B-8
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 4B-i

April 2019
List of Tables Appendix 4B
Page 4B-ii WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Appendix 4B TR-55 Curve Number Tables
Table 4B-1 Hydrologic soil series for selected soils in Washington State.
Soil Type Hydrologic Soil Group Soil Type Hydrologic Soil Group
Agnew C Dimal D
Ahl B Dragoon C
Aits C Dupont D
Alderwood C Earlmont C
Arents, Alderwood B Edgewick C
Arents, Everett B Eld B
Ashoe B Eloika B
Athena B Elwell B
Baldhill B Emdent D
Barneston C Esquatzel B
Baumgard B Everett A
Beausite B Everson D
Belfast C Freeman C
Bellingham D Galvin D
Bellingham variant C Garfield C
Bernhill B Garrison B
Boistfort B Getchell A
Bong A Giles B
Bonner B Glenrose B
Bow D Godfrey D
Brickel C Green Bluff B
Bridgeson D Greenwater A
Briscot D Grove C
Buckley C Hagen B
Bunker B Hardesty B
Cagey C Harstine C
Caldwell C Hartnit C
Carlsborg A Hesseltine B
Casey D Hoh B
Cassolary C Hoko C
Cathcart B Hoodsport C
Cedonia B Hoogdal C
Centralia B Hoypus A
Chehalis B Huel A
Cheney B Indianola A
Chesaw A Jonas B
Cinebar B Jumpe B
Clallam C Kalaloch C
Clayton B Kapowsin C/D
Coastal beaches variable Katula C
Cocolalla D Kilchis C
Colter C Kitsap C
Custer D Klaus C
Custer, Drained C Klone B
Dabob C Konner D
Dearyton C Lakesol B
Delphi D Laketon C
Dick A Lance B
Larkin B Poulsbo C
Latah D Prather C
Lates C Puget D
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 4B-1

April 2019
TR-55 Curve Number Tables Appendix 4B
Table 4B-1 Hydrologic soil series for selected soils in Washington State (continued).
Lebam B Puyallup B
Lummi D Queets B
Lynnwood A Quilcene C
Lystair B Ragnar B
Mal C Rainier C
Manley B Raught B
Marble A Reardan C
Mashel B Reed D
Maytown C Reed, Drained or Protected C
McKenna D Renton D
McMurray D Republic B
Melbourne B Riverwash variable
Menzel B Rober C
Mixed Alluvial variable Salal C
Molson B Salkum B
Mondovi B Sammamish D
Moscow C San Juan A
Mukilteo C/D Scamman D
Naff B Schneider B
Narcisse C Schumacher B
Nargar A Seattle D
National B Sekiu D
Neilton A Semiahmoo D
Newberg B Shalcar D
Nez Perce C Shano B
Nisqually B Shelton C
Nooksack C Si C
Norma C/D Sinclair C
Ogarty C Skipopa D
Olete C Skykomish B
Olomount C Snahopish B
Olympic B Snohomish D
Orcas D Snow B
Oridia D Solduc B
Orting D Solleks C
Oso C Spana D
Ovall C Spanaway A/B
Palouse B Speigle B
Pastik C Spokane C
Peone D Springdale A
Pheeney C Sulsavar B
Phelan D Sultan C
Phoebe B Sultan variant B
Pilchuck C Sumas C
Potchub C Swantown D
Tacoma D Vailton B
Tanwax D Vassar B
Tanwax, Drained C Verlot C
Tealwhit D Wapato D
Tekoa C Warden B
Tenino C Wethey C
Page 4B-2 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Table 4B-1 Hydrologic soil series for selected soils in Washington State (continued).
Tisch D Whidbey C
Tokul C Wilkeson B
Townsend C Winston A
Triton D Wolfeson C
Tukwila D Woodinville B
Tukey C Yelm C
Uhlig B Zynbar B
Urbana C
Hydrologic Soil Group Classifications, as defined by the Soil Conservation Service:

A = (Low runoff potential): Soils having low runoff potential and high infiltration rates, even when thoroughly
wetted. They consist chiefly of deep, well- to excessively drained sands or gravels, and have a high rate of
water transmission (greater than 0.30 in/hr).
B = (Moderately low runoff potential): Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and
consisting chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well- to well-drained soils, with moderately fine
to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission (0.15–0.3 in/hr).
C = (Moderately high runoff potential): Soils having low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting
chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to
fine textures. These soils have a low rate of water transmission (0.05–0.15 in/hr).
D = (High runoff potential): Soils having high runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential; soils with a permanent
high water table; soils with a hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface; and shallow soils over nearly
impervious material. These soils have a very low rate of water transmission (0–0.05 in/hr).
*From SCS, TR-55, Second Edition, June 1986, Exhibit A-1. Revisions made from SCS, Soil Interpretation Record,
Form #5, September 1988 and various county soil surveys.
This information can also be found online at: websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/websoilsurvey.aspx

April 2019
Table 4B-2 Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban, and rural areas (western
Washington).
CNs for hydrologic soil group
Cover Type and Hydrologic Condition A B C D
Curve Numbers for Predevelopment Conditions
Pasture, Grassland, or Range – Continuous Forage for Grazing:
Fair condition (ground cover 50% to 75% and not heavily grazed) 49 69 79 84
Good condition (ground cover >75% and lightly or only occasionally grazed) 39 61 74 80
Woods:
Fair (woods are grazed but not burned, and some forest litter covers the soil) 36 60 73 79
Good (woods are protected from grazing, and litter and brush adequately cover the soil) 30 55 70 77
Curve Numbers for Postdevelopment Conditions
Open Space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, landscaping, etc.):[1]
Fair condition (grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area) 77 85 90 92
Good condition (grass cover on >75% of the area) 68 80 86 90
Impervious Areas:
Open water bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. 100 100 100 100
Paved parking lots, roofs,[2] driveways, etc. (excluding right of way) 98 98 98 98
Porous Pavers and Permeable Interlocking Concrete (assumed as 85% impervious and 15% lawn):
Fair lawn condition (weighted average CNs) 95 96 97 97
Good lawn condition (weighted average CNs) 94 95 96 97
Paved 98 98 98 98
Gravel (including right of way) 76 85 89 91
Dirt (including right of way) 72 82 87 89
Poor condition (ground cover <50% or heavily grazed with no mulch) 68 79 86 89
Woods:
Poor (forest litter, small trees, and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing or regular burning) 45 66 77 83
Single Family Residential:[3] Should only be used for Average percent
Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre subdivisions >50 acres impervious area[3][4]
1.0 DU/GA 15 Separate curve number
1.5 DU/GA 20 must be selected for
2.0 DU/GA 25 pervious & impervious
2.5 DU/GA 30 portions of the site or
3.0 DU/GA 34 basin
3.5 DU/GA 38
4.0 DU/GA 42
4.5 DU/GA 46
5.0 DU/GA 48
5.5 DU/GA 50
6.0 DU/GA 52
6.5 DU/GA 54
7.0 DU/GA 56
7.5 DU/GA 58
PUDs, condos, apartments, commercial businesses, % impervious Separate curve numbers must be selected for
industrial areas, and subdivisions <50 acres must be computed pervious and impervious portions of the site
For a more detailed and complete description of land use curve numbers, refer to Chapter Two (2) of the Soil Conservation
Service’s Technical Release No. 55 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986).
[1] Composite CNs may be computed for other combinations of open space cover type.
[2] Where roof runoff and driveway runoff are infiltrated or dispersed according to the requirements in Chapter 3, the
average percent impervious area may be adjusted in accordance with the procedure described under “Flow Credit for
Roof Downspout Infiltration” and “Flow Credit for Roof Downspout Dispersion.”
[3] Assumes roof and driveway runoff is directed into street/storm system.
[4] All remaining pervious area (lawn) is considered to be in good condition for these curve numbers.

April 2019
Table 4B-3 Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban, and rural areas (eastern
Washington).
CNs for hydrologic soil group
Cover Type and Hydrologic Condition A B C D
Open Space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, landscaping, etc.):[1]
Poor condition (grass cover on <50% of the area) 68 79 86 89
Fair condition (grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area) 49 69 79 84
Good condition (grass cover on >75% of the area) 39 61 74 80
Impervious Areas:
Open water bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. 100 100 100 100
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. (excluding right of way) 98 98 98 98
Porous Pavers and Permeable Interlocking Concrete (assumed as 85% impervious and 15% lawn):
Fair lawn condition (weighted average CNs) 95 96 97 97
Gravel (including right of way) 76 85 89 91
Dirt (including right of way) 72 82 87 89
Poor condition (ground cover <50% or heavily grazed with no mulch) 68 79 86 89
Cultivated Agricultural Lands:
Row Crops (good), e.g., corn, sugar beets, soy beans 64 75 82 85
Small Grain (good), e.g., wheat, barley, flax 60 72 80 84
Meadow (continuous grass, protected from grazing, and generally mowed for hay): 30 58 71 78
Brush (brush-weed-grass mixture, with brush the major element):
Poor (<50% ground cover) 48 67 77 83
Fair (50% to 75% ground cover) 35 56 70 77
Good (>75% ground cover) 30[2] 48 65 73
Woods-Grass Combination (orchard or tree farm): [3]
Poor 57 73 82 86
Fair 43 65 76 82
Good 32 58 72 79
Woods:
Poor (forest litter, small trees, and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing or regular burning) 45 66 77 83
Herbaceous (mixture of grass, weeds, and low-growing brush, with brush the minor element):[4]
Poor (<30% ground cover) 80 87 93
Fair (30% to 70% ground cover) 71 81 89
Good (>70% ground cover) 62 74 85
Sagebrush With Grass Understory:[4]
Poor (<30% ground cover) 67 80 85
Fair (30% to 70% ground cover) 51 63 70
Good (>70% ground cover) 35 47 55
For a more detailed and complete description of land use curve numbers, refer to Chapter Two (2) of the Soil Conservation
Service’s Technical Release No. 55 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986).
[1] Composite CNs may be computed for other combinations of open space cover type.
[2] Actual curve number is less than 30; use CN = 30 for runoff computations.
[3] CNs shown were computed for areas with 50% woods and 50% grass (pasture) cover. Other combinations of conditions
may be computed from the CNs for woods and pasture.
[4] Curve numbers have not been developed for Group A soils.

April 2019
Table 4B-4 Curve number conversions for different antecedent moisture conditions
(case Ia = 0.2 S).
CN CN CN CN CN CN
for AMC II for AMC I for AMC III for AMC II for AMC I for AMC III
100 100 100 76 58 89
99 97 100 75 57 88
98 94 99 74 55 88
97 91 99 73 54 87
96 89 99 72 53 86
95 87 98 71 52 86
94 85 98 70 51 85
93 83 98 69 50 84
92 81 97 68 48 84
91 80 97 67 47 83
90 78 96 66 46 82
89 76 96 65 45 82
88 75 95 64 44 81
87 73 95 63 43 80
86 72 94 62 42 79
85 70 94 61 41 78
84 68 93 60 40 78
83 67 93 59 39 78
82 66 92 58 38 76
81 64 92 57 37 75
80 63 91 56 36 75
79 62 91 55 35 74
78 60 90 54 34 73
77 59 89 50 31 70
Source: SCS-NEH4. Table 10.1.

April 2019
Table 4B-5 “n” and “k” values used in time calculations for hydrographs.
“ns” Sheet Flow Equation Manning’s Values (for the initial 300 ft. of travel)
Manning’s Values for sheet flow only; from Overton and Meadows 1976 (see TR-55, 1986) ns
Smooth surfaces (concrete, asphalt, gravel, or bare, hand-packed soil) 0.011
Fallow fields or loose soil surface (no residue) 0.05
Cultivated soil with residue cover <20% 0.06
Cultivated soil with residue cover >20% 0.17
Short prairie grass and lawns 0.15
Dense grasses 0.24
Bermuda grass 0.41
Range (natural) 0.13
Woods or forest with light underbrush 0.40
Woods or forest with dense underbrush 0.80
(210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986)
“k” Values Used in Travel Time/Time of Concentration Calculations
Shallow Concentrated Flow (after the initial 300 ft. of sheet flow, R = 0.1) ks
1. Forest with heavy ground litter and meadows (n = 0.10) 3
2. Brushy ground with some trees (n = 0.060) 5
3. Fallow or minimum tillage cultivation (n = 0.040) 8
4. High grass (n = 0.035) 9
5. Short grass, pasture, and lawns (n = 0.030) 11
6. Nearly bare ground (n = 0.025) 13
7. Paved and gravel areas (n = 0.012) 27
Channel Flow (intermittent) (at the beginning of visible channels, R = 0.2) kc
1. Forested swale with heavy ground litter (n = 0.10) 5
2. Forested drainage course/ravine with defined channel bed (n = 0.050) 10
3. Rock-lined waterway (n = 0.035) 15
4. Grassed waterway (n = 0.030) 17
5. Earth-lined waterway (n = 0.025) 20
6. CMP pipe, uniform flow (n = 0.024) 21
7. Concrete pipe, uniform flow (0.012) 42
8. Other waterways and pipe 0.508/n
Channel Flow (continuous stream, R = 0.4) kc
9. Meandering stream with some pools (n = 0.040) 20
10. Rock-lined stream (n = 0.035) 23
11. Grass-lined stream (n = 0.030) 27
12. Other streams, manmade channels, and pipe 0.807/n

April 2019
Table 4B-6 Values of the roughness coefficient, “n.”
Manning’s Manning’s
Type of Channel Type of Channel
“n” “n”
and Description and Description
(Normal) (Normal)
A. Constructed Channels 6. Sluggish reaches, weedy
a. Earth, straight and uniform deep pools 0.070
1. Clean, recently completed 0.018 7. Very weedy reaches, deep
2. Gravel, uniform selection, 0.025 pools, or floodways with
clean heavy stand of timber and
3. With short grass, few 0.027 underbrush 0.100
weeds b. Mountain streams, no vegetation
b. Earth, winding and sluggish in channel, banks usually steep,
1. No vegetation 0.025 trees and brush along banks
2. Grass, some weeds 0.030 submerged at high stages
3. Dense weeds or aquatic 1. Bottom: gravel, cobbles, and
plants in deep channels 0.035 few boulders 0.040
4. Earth bottom and rubble 2. Bottom: cobbles with large
sides 0.030 boulders 0.050
5. Stony bottom and weedy B-2 Flood plains
banks 0.035 a. Pasture, no brush
6. Cobble bottom and clean 1. Short grass 0.030
sides 0.040 2. High grass 0.035
c. Rock-lined b. Cultivated areas
1. Smooth and uniform 0.035 1. No crop 0.030
2. Jagged and irregular 0.040 2. Mature row crops 0.035
d. Channels not maintained, 3. Mature field crops 0.040
weeds and brush uncut c. Brush
1. Dense weeds, high as flow 1. Scattered brush, heavy
depth 0.080 weeds 0.050
2. Clean bottom, brush on 2. Light brush and trees 0.060
sides 0.050 3. Medium to dense brush 0.070
3. Same, highest stage of 4. Heavy, dense brush 0.100
flow 0.070 d. Trees
4. Dense brush, high stage 0.100 1. Dense willows, straight 0.150
B. Natural Streams 2. Cleared land with tree
B-1 Minor streams (top width at stumps, no sprouts 0.040
flood stage < 100 ft.) 3. Same as above, but with
a. Streams on plain heavy growth of sprouts 0.060
1. Clean, straight, full stage, 4. Heavy stand of timber, a few
no rifts or deep pools 0.030 downed trees, little
2. Same as above, but more undergrowth, flood stage
stones and weeds 0.035 below branches 0.100
3. Clean, winding, some 5. Same as above, but with
pools and shoals 0.040 flood stage reaching
4. Same as above, but some branches 0.120
weeds 0.040
5. Same as 4, but more stones 0.050
*Note: These “n” values are “normal” values for use in analysis of channels. For conservative design for channel
capacity, the maximum values listed in other references should be considered. For channel bank stability, the
minimum values should be considered.

April 2019
APPENDIX 4C
Eastern Washington
Design Storm Events
Appendix 4C Contents
4C-1 SCS Type II and Type 1A Hyetographs ............................................................... 4C-1

4C-2 Custom Design Storm Hyetographs ................................................................... 4C-1
4C-3 Storm Analysis .................................................................................................. 4C-4
4C-4 Antecedent Moisture Condition ........................................................................ 4C-6
4C-5 Precipitation Magnitude/Frequency Analysis .................................................... 4C-8
4C-6 Precipitation Magnitude for 24-Hour and Long- and Short-Duration Runoff
Treatment Storm ............................................................................................ 4C-18
4C-7 Precipitation Magnitude for Long-Duration Storms ......................................... 4C-18
4C-8 Precipitation Magnitude for Short-Duration Storms ........................................ 4C-19
List of Tables
Table 4C-1 Antecedent precipitation prior to long-duration storm. .............................. 4C-7
Table 4C-2 Total 5-day antecedent rainfall (inches). ..................................................... 4C-7
Table 4C-3 SCS Type 1A storm hyetograph values. ........................................................ 4C-9
Table 4C-4 SCS Type II storm hyetograph values. .........................................................4C-11
Table 4C-5 Short-duration storm hyetograph values: All regions. ................................4C-13
Table 4C-6 Long-duration storm hyetograph values: Region 1 – Cascade Mountains. ..4C-14
Table 4C-7 Long-duration storm hyetograph values: Region 2 – Central Basin. ............4C-15
Table 4C-8 Long-duration storm hyetograph values: Region 3 – Okanogan, Spokane,
Palouse. .....................................................................................................4C-16
Table 4C-9 Long-duration storm hyetograph values: Region 4 – Northeastern Mountains
and Blue Mountains. ..................................................................................4C-17
Table 4C-10 Coefficients Cwqs for computing 6-month, 24-hour precipitation. ...............4C-18
Table 4C-11 Conversion factor for 24-hour to regional long-duration storm
precipitation. .............................................................................................4C-19
Table 4C-12 Precipitation for selected return periods (Csds). ..........................................4C-20
List of Figures
Figure 4C-1 SCS Type 1A hyetograph.............................................................................. 4C-2
Figure 4C-2 SCS Type II hyetograph. ............................................................................... 4C-2
Figure 4C-3 Short-duration storm unit hyetograph. ....................................................... 4C-5
Figure 4C-4 Sample long-duration storm hyetograph. .................................................... 4C-6
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 4C-i

April 2019
Contents Appendix 4C
Page 4C-ii WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Appendix 4C Eastern Washington Design Storm Events
Eastern Washington design storms are based on two parameters:

 Total rainfall volume (depth in inches)
 Rainfall distribution (dimensionless)
The design storm event is specified by return period (months and/or years) and duration. The
following sections explain total rainfall depth and rainfall distribution associated with a design
storm.
All storm event hydrograph methods require the input of a rainfall distribution or design storm
hyetograph. Essentially, the design storm hyetograph is a plot of rainfall depth versus time for a
given design period and duration. It is usually presented as a dimensionless plot of unit rainfall
depth (incremental rainfall depth for each time interval divided by the total rainfall depth)
versus time.
Design storm distribution for all eastern Washington Climatic Regions – 1, 2, 3, and 4:
 Flow-Based BMPs: The short-duration storm distribution.
 Volume-Based BMPs: The SCS Type 1A storm distribution (Regions 2 and 3) or the
regional long-duration storm (Regions 1–4).
4C-1 SCS Type II and Type 1A Hyetographs

The Type II hyetograph is a standard SCS (NRCS) rainfall distribution that has a high-intensity
peak. It has been used in eastern Washington since the 1970s and is also used throughout much
of the United States. The Type IA hyetograph is also a standard NRCS rainfall distribution. It is
applicable to western Washington and Climatic Regions 2 and 3 in eastern Washington. These
are two of four 24-hour storm distribution types commonly used in SCS hydrograph methods.
For graphical representation of these two SCS hyetographs, see Figures 4C-1 and 4C-2. Tabular
values of these hyetographs are in Tables 4C-3 and 4C-4.
4C-2 Custom Design Storm Hyetographs

When rainfall patterns during storms were analyzed in eastern Washington (see Appendix 4A),
it was concluded that the SCS Type II rainfall distribution does not match the historical records
for two storm types of interest for stormwater analyses in eastern Washington: the short-
duration thunderstorm and the long-duration winter storm.
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 4C-1

April 2019
Eastern Washington Design Storm Events Appendix 4C
0.12
0.10
(30 min increments)
Precipitation Ratio
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hours)
Figure 4C-1 SCS Type 1A hyetograph.
0.40
0.35
0.30
(30 min increments)
Precipitation Ratio
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Hours)
Figure 4C-2 SCS Type II hyetograph.
Page 4C-2 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Short-duration thunderstorms can occur in late spring through early fall and are characterized
by high intensities for short periods of time over localized areas. These types of storms can
produce high rates of runoff and flash flooding in urban areas and are important where flood
peak discharge and/or erosion are design considerations.
Long-duration general storms can occur at any time of the year, but are more common in late
fall through winter and in late spring and early summer. General storms in eastern Washington
are characterized by sequences of storms and intervening dry periods, often occurring over
several days. Low- to moderate-intensity precipitation is typical during the periods of storm
activity. These types of events can produce floods with moderate peak discharge and large
runoff volumes. The runoff volume can be augmented by snowmelt when precipitation falls
on snow during winter and early spring storms. These types of storm events are important
where both runoff volume and peak discharge are design considerations.
When using the custom design storms, it is necessary to note that eastern Washington has
been divided into four climatic regions to reflect the differences in storm characteristics and
the seasonality of storms. The four climatic regions are shown as follows:
Region 1 – East Slopes of the Cascade Mountains

This region is composed of mountain areas on the east slopes of the Cascade Mountains. It is
bounded on the west by the Cascade crest and generally bounded to the east by the contour
line of 16 inches mean annual precipitation.

April 2019
Region 2 – Central Basin

The Central Basin Region is composed of the Columbia Basin and adjacent low elevation areas
in central Washington. It is generally bounded on the west by the contour line of 16 inches
mean annual precipitation at the base of the east slopes of the Cascade Mountains. The region
is bounded on the north and east by the contour line of 12 inches mean annual precipitation.
Most of this region receives about 8 inches of mean annual precipitation. Many of the larger
cities in eastern Washington are in this region, including Ellensburg, Kennewick, Moses Lake,
Pasco, Richland, Wenatchee, and Yakima.
Region 3 – Okanogan, Spokane, and the Palouse

This region is composed of intermountain areas and includes areas near Okanogan, Spokane,
and the Palouse. It is bounded on the northwest by the contour line of 16 inches mean annual
precipitation at the base of the east slopes of the Cascade Mountains. It is bounded on the
south and west by the contour line of 12 inches mean annual precipitation at the eastern
edge of the Central Basin. It is bounded on the northeast by the Kettle River Range and Selkirk
Mountains at approximately the contour line of 22 inches mean annual precipitation. It is
bounded on the southeast by the Blue Mountains; also at the contour line of 22 inches
mean annual precipitation.
Region 4 – Northeastern Mountains and Blue Mountains

This region is composed of mountain areas in the easternmost part of Washington State. It
includes portions of the Kettle River Range and Selkirk Mountains in the northeast and the Blue
Mountains in the southeast corner of eastern Washington. Mean annual precipitation ranges
from a minimum of 22 inches to over 60 inches. The western boundary of this region is the
contour line of 22 inches mean annual precipitation.
4C-3 Storm Analysis

Based on analyses of historical storms in eastern Washington, it has been concluded that the
short-duration summer thunderstorm typically generates the greatest peak discharges for small
urban watersheds. Use of short-duration thunderstorms is therefore appropriate for designing
conveyance structures and biofiltration swales. Analyses also indicate that the long-duration
winter storm typically generates the greatest runoff volume. Long-duration design storms are
therefore appropriate for designing stormwater detention and runoff treatment facilities where
runoff volume is the primary concern. Use the Type 1A storm distribution for volume-based
BMPs in Climatic Regions 2 and 3, or use the regional long-duration distribution in Climatic
Regions 1–4.
Based on these analyses, synthetic design storms were developed for the short-duration
thunderstorm and long-duration winter storm. The design storms were developed in a manner
that replicated temporal characteristics observed in storms from areas climatologically similar
to eastern Washington.

April 2019
 Short-Duration Storm
Short duration, high intensity, and smaller volumes characterize summer
thunderstorms. The short-duration storm was selected to be 3 hours in duration.
The storm temporal pattern is shown in Figure 4C-3 as a unit hyetograph. Tabular
values are listed in Table 4C-5. Total precipitation is 1.06 times the 2-year, 2-hour
precipitation amount to derive the 2-year, 3 hour storm. (See Table 4C-12 for further
guidance.) There is one short-duration storm for all climatic regions in eastern
Washington.
 Long-Duration Storm (varies by region)
The long-duration storm varies by region and is composed of a series of storm events
separated by a dry intervening period, occurring during a 72-hour period of time. A
sample 72-hour long-duration storm hyetograph is shown in Figure 4C-4.
The smaller event (from 6 to 21 hours, above) is insufficient to generate the runoff that is
present when the larger precipitation commences. For that reason, it is not necessary to
directly model the smaller precipitation event. Only the larger portion (commencing at
36 hours, as shown above) is necessary to directly model.
The larger portion is similar to the 24-hour SCS Type 1A storm. For Climatic Regions 2 and 3, the
SCS Type IA storm is sufficiently similar to the four regional long-duration storm hyetographs to
use directly.
0.30
(5 min increments)
Precipitation Ratio
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time (minutes)
Figure 4C-3 Short-duration storm unit hyetograph.

April 2019
0.1
Precipitation
Antecedent Precipitation Long-Duration Storm

0.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72
Time (hours)
Figure 4C-4 Sample long-duration storm hyetograph.

Tabular values of the regional long-duration storm hyetographs are listed in Tables 4C-8
to 4C-11.
If you use the 24-hour SCS Type 1A storm for the long-duration storm, the precipitation
totals are the 24-hour amounts without adjustment. If you use the regional long-duration
hyetographs, adjust the precipitation totals as indicated for Regions 1 and 4, using
Table 4C-11.
4C-4 Antecedent Moisture Condition

Regardless whether you use the 24-hour SCS Type 1A or regional hyetographs for long-duration
storm modeling, you need to account for the prior soil wetting produced by the smaller storm
event (from 6 hours to 21 hours, above) that is not modeled. You can express the amount of
antecedent precipitation as a percentage of the total precipitation modeled, as shown in
Table 4C-3.
Consider curve number adjustments, based on engineering analysis and judgment of the
antecedent precipitation, soils characteristics, and surface conditions. The Antecedent Moisture
Condition (AMC) is one basis for adjustment. Another is use of the Soil Conservation Service
county surveys that include estimates of permeability and/or infiltration rates.

April 2019
Following is an example of the AMC:

For a 25-year Type 1A storm in Spokane (2.2"), determine whether AMC adjustments need to
be considered in the analysis. If so, take the following steps:
1. From Table 4C-1, multiply 2.2" by 27% (Region 3), which equals 0.7". This is the
amount of precipitation from the first hump of the long-duration storm.
Table 4C-1 Antecedent precipitation prior to long-duration storm.
Antecedent Precipitation as
Region # Region Name Percentage of 24-Hour SCS Type 1A
Storm Precipitation
1 East Slope Cascades 33%
2 Central Basin 19%
3 Okanogan, Spokane, Palouse 27%
4 NE & Blue Mountains 36%
Antecedent Precipitation as
Region # Region Name Percentage of Regional Long-Duration
Storm Hyetograph Precipitation
1 East Slope Cascades 28%
2 Central Basin 19%
3 Okanogan, Spokane, Palouse 25%
4 NE & Blue Mountains 34%
2. Next, determine whether the AMC will affect the CN values using Table 4C-2. If the
precipitation from the first storm is over 1.1 or less than 0.5, adjust the CN value using
Appendix 4B. CN values are generally assumed to be AMC II.
Table 4C-2 Total 5-day antecedent rainfall (inches).
AMC Dormant Season Growing Season

I Less than 0.5 Less than 1.4
II 0.5 to 1.1 1.4 to 2.1
III Over 1.1 Over 2.1

April 2019
4C-5 Precipitation Magnitude/Frequency Analysis

The current source for precipitation magnitude/frequency estimates is National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas II, which is based on data collected from about 1940
through 1966, and NOAA Technical Report Number 36, which uses data through the late 1970s.
In both of these studies, precipitation statistics were computed for each gage and used to
produce point precipitation estimates at each site. The accuracy of the estimates was strongly
related to the length of record at each site. Better estimates were obtained for more common
events, with lesser accuracy for more rare events.
NOAA published the total depth of rainfall (in tenths of an inch) for storms of 24-hour duration
and 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence intervals. The information is presented in the
form of "isopluvial" maps for each state. Isopluvial maps are contour maps where the contours
represent total inches of rainfall for a specific duration.
 The web link to the isopluvial map for eastern Washington for the 2-year recurrence
interval for the 2-hour duration storm event is in Appendix 4A. This map is from the
Dam Safety Guidelines, Technical Note 3, Design Storm Construction, Washington
State Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, Report 92-55G, April 1993.
This map is used for designs based on the short-duration storm.
 Web links to the isopluvial maps for eastern Washington for the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50- and
100-year recurrence interval for 24-hour duration storm events are in Appendix 4A.
These are excerpted from NOAA Atlas 2. The 24-hour isopluvial maps are used for
designs based on the long-duration storm and 24-hour storms.

April 2019
Table 4C-3 SCS Type 1A storm hyetograph values.

Time Incremental Cumulative Time Incremental Cumulative Time Incremental Cumulative
(0.1 hours) Rainfall Rainfall (0.1 hours) Rainfall Rainfall (0.1 hours) Rainfall Rainfall
0.0 0.000 0.000 4.5 0.004 0.135 9.0 0.007 0.520
0.1 0.002 0.002 4.6 0.004 0.139 9.1 0.007 0.527
0.2 0.002 0.004 4.7 0.004 0.143 9.2 0.006 0.533
0.3 0.002 0.006 4.8 0.004 0.147 9.3 0.006 0.539
0.4 0.002 0.008 4.9 0.005 0.152 9.4 0.006 0.545
0.5 0.002 0.010 5.0 0.004 0.156 9.5 0.005 0.550
0.6 0.002 0.012 5.1 0.005 0.161 9.6 0.006 0.556
0.7 0.002 0.014 5.2 0.004 0.165 9.7 0.005 0.561
0.8 0.002 0.016 5.3 0.005 0.170 9.8 0.006 0.567
0.9 0.002 0.018 5.4 0.005 0.175 9.9 0.005 0.572
1.0 0.002 0.020 5.5 0.005 0.180 10.0 0.005 0.577
1.1 0.003 0.023 5.6 0.005 0.185 10.1 0.005 0.582
1.2 0.003 0.026 5.7 0.005 0.190 10.2 0.005 0.587
1.3 0.003 0.029 5.8 0.005 0.195 10.3 0.005 0.592
1.4 0.003 0.032 5.9 0.005 0.200 10.4 0.004 0.596
1.5 0.003 0.035 6.0 0.006 0.206 10.5 0.005 0.601
1.6 0.003 0.038 6.1 0.006 0.212 10.6 0.005 0.606
1.7 0.003 0.041 6.2 0.006 0.218 10.7 0.004 0.610
1.8 0.003 0.044 6.3 0.006 0.224 10.8 0.005 0.615
1.9 0.003 0.047 6.4 0.007 0.231 10.9 0.005 0.620
2.0 0.003 0.050 6.5 0.006 0.237 11.0 0.004 0.624
2.1 0.003 0.053 6.6 0.006 0.243 11.1 0.004 0.628
2.2 0.003 0.056 6.7 0.006 0.249 11.2 0.005 0.633
2.3 0.004 0.060 6.8 0.006 0.255 11.3 0.004 0.637
2.4 0.003 0.063 6.9 0.006 0.261 11.4 0.004 0.641
2.5 0.003 0.066 7.0 0.007 0.268 11.5 0.004 0.645
2.6 0.003 0.069 7.1 0.007 0.275 11.6 0.004 0.649
2.7 0.003 0.072 7.2 0.008 0.283 11.7 0.004 0.653
2.8 0.004 0.076 7.3 0.008 0.291 11.8 0.004 0.657
2.9 0.003 0.079 7.4 0.009 0.300 11.9 0.003 0.660
3.0 0.003 0.082 7.5 0.010 0.310 12.0 0.004 0.664
3.1 0.003 0.085 7.6 0.021 0.331 12.1 0.004 0.668
3.2 0.003 0.088 7.7 0.024 0.355 12.2 0.003 0.671
3.3 0.003 0.091 7.8 0.024 0.379 12.3 0.004 0.675
3.4 0.004 0.095 7.9 0.024 0.403 12.4 0.004 0.679
3.5 0.003 0.098 8.0 0.022 0.425 12.5 0.004 0.683
3.6 0.003 0.101 8.1 0.014 0.439 12.6 0.004 0.687
3.7 0.004 0.105 8.2 0.013 0.452 12.7 0.003 0.690
3.8 0.004 0.109 8.3 0.010 0.462 12.8 0.004 0.694
3.9 0.003 0.112 8.4 0.010 0.472 12.9 0.003 0.697
4.0 0.004 0.116 8.5 0.008 0.480 13.0 0.004 0.701
4.1 0.004 0.120 8.6 0.009 0.489 13.1 0.004 0.705
4.2 0.003 0.123 8.7 0.009 0.498 13.2 0.003 0.708
4.3 0.004 0.127 8.8 0.007 0.505 13.3 0.004 0.712
4.4 0.004 0.131 8.9 0.008 0.513 13.4 0.004 0.716

April 2019
Table 4C-3. SCS Type IA storm hyetograph values (continued).

13.5 0.003 0.719 18.0 0.003 0.860 22.5 0.002 0.970
13.6 0.003 0.722 18.1 0.003 0.863 22.6 0.002 0.972
13.7 0.004 0.726 18.2 0.002 0.865 22.7 0.002 0.974
13.8 0.003 0.729 18.3 0.003 0.868 22.8 0.002 0.976
13.9 0.004 0.733 18.4 0.003 0.871 22.9 0.002 0.978
14.0 0.003 0.736 18.5 0.003 0.874 23.0 0.002 0.980
14.1 0.003 0.739 18.6 0.002 0.876 23.1 0.002 0.982
14.2 0.004 0.743 18.7 0.003 0.879 23.2 0.002 0.984
14.3 0.003 0.746 18.8 0.003 0.882 23.3 0.002 0.986
14.4 0.003 0.749 18.9 0.002 0.884 23.4 0.002 0.988
14.5 0.004 0.753 19.0 0.003 0.887 23.5 0.002 0.990
14.6 0.003 0.756 19.1 0.003 0.890 23.6 0.002 0.992
14.7 0.003 0.759 19.2 0.002 0.892 23.7 0.002 0.994
14.8 0.004 0.763 19.3 0.003 0.895 23.8 0.002 0.996
14.9 0.003 0.766 19.4 0.002 0.897 23.9 0.002 0.998
15.0 0.003 0.769 19.5 0.003 0.900 24.0 0.002 1.000
15.1 0.003 0.772 19.6 0.003 0.903
15.2 0.004 0.776 19.7 0.002 0.905
15.3 0.003 0.779 19.8 0.003 0.908
15.4 0.003 0.782 19.9 0.002 0.910
15.5 0.003 0.785 20.0 0.003 0.913
15.6 0.003 0.788 20.1 0.002 0.915
15.7 0.004 0.792 20.2 0.003 0.918
15.8 0.003 0.795 20.3 0.002 0.920
15.9 0.003 0.798 20.4 0.002 0.922
16.0 0.003 0.801 20.5 0.003 0.925
16.1 0.003 0.804 20.6 0.002 0.927
16.2 0.003 0.807 20.7 0.003 0.930
16.3 0.003 0.810 20.8 0.002 0.932
16.4 0.003 0.813 20.9 0.002 0.934
16.5 0.003 0.816 21.0 0.003 0.937
16.6 0.003 0.819 21.1 0.002 0.939
16.7 0.003 0.822 21.2 0.002 0.941
16.8 0.003 0.825 21.3 0.003 0.944
16.9 0.003 0.828 21.4 0.002 0.946
17.0 0.003 0.831 21.5 0.002 0.948
17.1 0.003 0.834 21.6 0.003 0.951
17.2 0.003 0.837 21.7 0.002 0.953
17.3 0.003 0.840 21.8 0.002 0.955
17.4 0.003 0.843 21.9 0.002 0.957
17.5 0.003 0.846 22.0 0.002 0.959
17.6 0.003 0.849 22.1 0.003 0.962
17.7 0.002 0.851 22.2 0.002 0.964
17.8 0.003 0.854 22.3 0.002 0.966
17.9 0.003 0.857 22.4 0.002 0.968

April 2019
Table 4C-4 SCS Type II storm hyetograph values.

0.0 0.000 0.000 4.5 0.001 0.055 9.0 0.003 0.147
0.1 0.001 0.001 4.6 0.002 0.057 9.1 0.003 0.150
0.2 0.001 0.002 4.7 0.001 0.058 9.2 0.003 0.153
0.3 0.001 0.003 4.8 0.002 0.060 9.3 0.004 0.157
0.4 0.001 0.004 4.9 0.001 0.061 9.4 0.003 0.160
0.5 0.001 0.005 5.0 0.002 0.063 9.5 0.003 0.163
0.6 0.001 0.006 5.1 0.002 0.065 9.6 0.003 0.166
0.7 0.001 0.007 5.2 0.001 0.066 9.7 0.004 0.170
0.8 0.001 0.008 5.3 0.002 0.068 9.8 0.003 0.173
0.9 0.001 0.009 5.4 0.002 0.070 9.9 0.004 0.177
1.0 0.002 0.011 5.5 0.001 0.071 10.0 0.004 0.181
1.1 0.001 0.012 5.6 0.002 0.073 10.1 0.004 0.185
1.2 0.001 0.013 5.7 0.002 0.075 10.2 0.004 0.189
1.3 0.001 0.014 5.8 0.001 0.076 10.3 0.005 0.194
1.4 0.001 0.015 5.9 0.002 0.078 10.4 0.005 0.199
1.5 0.001 0.016 6.0 0.002 0.080 10.5 0.005 0.204
1.6 0.001 0.017 6.1 0.002 0.082 10.6 0.005 0.209
1.7 0.001 0.018 6.2 0.002 0.084 10.7 0.006 0.215
1.8 0.002 0.020 6.3 0.001 0.085 10.8 0.006 0.221
1.9 0.001 0.021 6.4 0.002 0.087 10.9 0.007 0.228
2.0 0.001 0.022 6.5 0.002 0.089 11.0 0.007 0.235
2.1 0.001 0.023 6.6 0.002 0.091 11.1 0.008 0.243
2.2 0.001 0.024 6.7 0.002 0.093 11.2 0.008 0.251
2.3 0.002 0.026 6.8 0.002 0.095 11.3 0.010 0.261
2.4 0.001 0.027 6.9 0.002 0.097 11.4 0.010 0.271
2.5 0.001 0.028 7.0 0.002 0.099 11.5 0.012 0.283
2.6 0.001 0.029 7.1 0.002 0.101 11.6 0.024 0.307
2.7 0.002 0.031 7.2 0.002 0.103 11.7 0.047 0.354
2.8 0.001 0.032 7.3 0.002 0.105 11.8 0.077 0.431
2.9 0.001 0.033 7.4 0.002 0.107 11.9 0.137 0.568
3.0 0.002 0.035 7.5 0.002 0.109 12.0 0.095 0.663
3.1 0.001 0.036 7.6 0.002 0.111 12.1 0.019 0.682
3.2 0.001 0.037 7.7 0.002 0.113 12.2 0.017 0.699
3.3 0.001 0.038 7.8 0.003 0.116 12.3 0.014 0.713
3.4 0.002 0.040 7.9 0.002 0.118 12.4 0.012 0.725
3.5 0.001 0.041 8.0 0.002 0.120 12.5 0.010 0.735
3.6 0.001 0.042 8.1 0.002 0.122 12.6 0.008 0.743
3.7 0.002 0.044 8.2 0.003 0.125 12.7 0.008 0.751
3.8 0.001 0.045 8.3 0.002 0.127 12.8 0.008 0.759
3.9 0.002 0.047 8.4 0.003 0.130 12.9 0.007 0.766
4.0 0.001 0.048 8.5 0.002 0.132 13.0 0.006 0.772
4.1 0.001 0.049 8.6 0.003 0.135 13.1 0.006 0.778
4.2 0.002 0.051 8.7 0.003 0.138 13.2 0.006 0.784
4.3 0.001 0.052 8.8 0.003 0.141 13.3 0.005 0.789
4.4 0.002 0.054 8.9 0.003 0.144 13.4 0.005 0.794

April 2019
Table 4C-4. SCS Type II storm hyetograph values (continued).

13.5 0.005 0.799 18.0 0.002 0.921 22.5 0.001 0.983
13.6 0.005 0.804 18.1 0.002 0.923 22.6 0.001 0.984
13.7 0.004 0.808 18.2 0.002 0.925 22.7 0.001 0.985
13.8 0.004 0.812 18.3 0.001 0.926 22.8 0.001 0.986
13.9 0.004 0.816 18.4 0.002 0.928 22.9 0.002 0.988
14.0 0.004 0.820 18.5 0.002 0.930 23.0 0.001 0.989
14.1 0.004 0.824 18.6 0.001 0.931 23.1 0.001 0.990
14.2 0.003 0.827 18.7 0.002 0.933 23.2 0.001 0.991
14.3 0.004 0.831 18.8 0.002 0.935 23.3 0.001 0.992
14.4 0.003 0.834 18.9 0.001 0.936 23.4 0.001 0.993
14.5 0.004 0.838 19.0 0.002 0.938 23.5 0.001 0.994
14.6 0.003 0.841 19.1 0.001 0.939 23.6 0.002 0.996
14.7 0.003 0.844 19.2 0.002 0.941 23.7 0.001 0.997
14.8 0.003 0.847 19.3 0.001 0.942 23.8 0.001 0.998
14.9 0.003 0.850 19.4 0.002 0.944 23.9 0.001 0.999
15.0 0.004 0.854 19.5 0.001 0.945 24.0 0.001 1.000
15.1 0.002 0.856 19.6 0.002 0.947
15.2 0.003 0.859 19.7 0.001 0.948
15.3 0.003 0.862 19.8 0.001 0.949
15.4 0.003 0.865 19.9 0.002 0.951
15.5 0.003 0.868 20.0 0.001 0.952
15.6 0.002 0.870 20.1 0.001 0.953
15.7 0.003 0.873 20.2 0.002 0.955
15.8 0.002 0.875 20.3 0.001 0.956
15.9 0.003 0.878 20.4 0.001 0.957
16.0 0.002 0.880 20.5 0.001 0.958
16.1 0.002 0.882 20.6 0.002 0.960
16.2 0.003 0.885 20.7 0.001 0.961
16.3 0.002 0.887 20.8 0.001 0.962
16.4 0.002 0.889 20.9 0.002 0.964
16.5 0.002 0.891 21.0 0.001 0.965
16.6 0.002 0.893 21.1 0.001 0.966
16.7 0.002 0.895 21.2 0.001 0.967
16.8 0.003 0.898 21.3 0.001 0.968
16.9 0.002 0.900 21.4 0.002 0.970
17.0 0.002 0.902 21.5 0.001 0.971
17.1 0.002 0.904 21.6 0.001 0.972
17.2 0.002 0.906 21.7 0.001 0.973
17.3 0.002 0.908 21.8 0.002 0.975
17.4 0.002 0.910 21.9 0.001 0.976
17.5 0.002 0.912 22.0 0.001 0.977
17.6 0.002 0.914 22.1 0.001 0.978
17.7 0.001 0.915 22.2 0.001 0.979
17.8 0.002 0.917 22.3 0.002 0.981
17.9 0.002 0.919 22.4 0.001 0.982

April 2019
Table 4C-5 Short-duration storm hyetograph values: All regions.

Use 2-hour precipitation value times 1.06 to determine 3-hour total precipitation amount.
Time Time Incremental Cumulative
(minutes) (hours) Rainfall Rainfall
0 0 0.0000 0.0000
5 0.08 0.0047 0.0047
10 0.17 0.0047 0.0094
15 0.25 0.0057 0.0151
20 0.33 0.0104 0.0255
25 0.42 0.0123 0.0378
30 0.50 0.0236 0.0614
35 0.58 0.0292 0.0906
40 0.67 0.0528 0.1434
45 0.75 0.0736 0.2170
50 0.83 0.1736 0.3906
55 0.92 0.2377 0.6283
60 1.00 0.1255 0.7538
65 1.08 0.0604 0.8142
70 1.17 0.0406 0.8548
75 1.25 0.0151 0.8699
80 1.33 0.0132 0.8831
85 1.42 0.0113 0.8944
90 1.50 0.0104 0.9048
95 1.58 0.0085 0.9133
100 1.67 0.0075 0.9208
105 1.75 0.0057 0.9265
110 1.83 0.0057 0.9322
115 1.92 0.0057 0.9379
120 2.00 0.0057 0.9436
125 2.08 0.0047 0.9483
130 2.17 0.0047 0.9530
135 2.25 0.0047 0.9577
140 2.33 0.0047 0.9624
145 2.42 0.0047 0.9671
150 2.50 0.0047 0.9718
155 2.58 0.0047 0.9765
160 2.67 0.0047 0.9812
165 2.75 0.0047 0.9859
170 2.83 0.0047 0.9906
175 2.92 0.0047 0.9953
180 3.00 0.0047 1.0000

April 2019
Table 4C-6 Long-duration storm hyetograph values: Region 1 – Cascade Mountains.

Use 24-hour precipitation value times 1.16 to determine long-duration storm precipitation
total.
Time Incremental Cumulative Time Incremental Cumulative
(hours) Rainfall Rainfall (hours) Rainfall Rainfall
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 23.5 0.0134 0.7894
0.5 0.0024 0.0024 24.0 0.0130 0.8025
1.0 0.0036 0.0060 24.5 0.0127 0.8151
1.5 0.0040 0.0101 25.0 0.0123 0.8275
2.0 0.0047 0.0148 25.5 0.0120 0.8395
2.5 0.0051 0.0199 26.0 0.0117 0.8512
3.0 0.0054 0.0253 26.5 0.0115 0.8627
3.5 0.0058 0.0311 27.0 0.0112 0.8739
4.0 0.0062 0.0374 27.5 0.0110 0.8849
4.5 0.0066 0.0439 28.0 0.0107 0.8956
5.0 0.0078 0.0517 28.5 0.0104 0.9060
5.5 0.0096 0.0614 29.0 0.0102 0.9162
6.0 0.0120 0.0733 29.5 0.0099 0.9261
6.5 0.0138 0.0871 30.0 0.0097 0.9358
7.0 0.0150 0.1022 30.5 0.0088 0.9446
7.5 0.0157 0.1179 31.0 0.0079 0.9525
8.0 0.0164 0.1343 31.5 0.0071 0.9596
8.5 0.0171 0.1513 32.0 0.0063 0.9659
9.0 0.0178 0.1691 32.5 0.0058 0.9717
9.5 0.0185 0.1876 33.0 0.0054 0.9772
10.0 0.0192 0.2067 33.5 0.0050 0.9822
10.5 0.0198 0.2266 34.0 0.0047 0.9869
11.0 0.0205 0.2471 34.5 0.0043 0.9912
11.5 0.0212 0.2683 35.0 0.0039 0.9950
12.0 0.0220 0.2904 35.5 0.0030 0.9981
12.5 0.0226 0.3130 36.0 0.0019 1.0000
13.0 0.0235 0.3364
13.5 0.0243 0.3608
14.0 0.0297 0.3905
14.5 0.0338 0.4243
15.0 0.0507 0.4750
15.5 0.0315 0.5066
16.0 0.0283 0.5349
16.5 0.0257 0.5606
17.0 0.0231 0.5837
17.5 0.0214 0.6051
18.0 0.0183 0.6234
18.5 0.0168 0.6402
19.0 0.0165 0.6566
19.5 0.0161 0.6728
20.0 0.0158 0.6886
20.5 0.0154 0.7040
21.0 0.0151 0.7191
21.5 0.0148 0.7339
22.0 0.0144 0.7483
22.5 0.0141 0.7623
23.0 0.0137 0.7761

April 2019
Table 4C-7 Long-duration storm hyetograph values: Region 2 – Central Basin.

total.
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 23.5 0.0078 0.9950
0.5 0.0054 0.0054 24.0 0.0050 1.0000
1.0 0.0086 0.0140
1.5 0.0100 0.0240
2.0 0.0120 0.0360
2.5 0.0130 0.0490
3.0 0.0140 0.0630
3.5 0.0150 0.0780
4.0 0.0160 0.0940
4.5 0.0170 0.1110
5.0 0.0187 0.1297
5.5 0.0228 0.1525
6.0 0.0283 0.1808
6.5 0.0305 0.2113
7.0 0.0335 0.2448
7.5 0.0365 0.2813
8.0 0.0484 0.3297
8.5 0.0622 0.3919
9.0 0.0933 0.4852
9.5 0.0527 0.5380
10.0 0.0402 0.5782
10.5 0.0372 0.6154
11.0 0.0348 0.6502
11.5 0.0331 0.6833
12.0 0.0289 0.7122
12.5 0.0252 0.7374
13.0 0.0219 0.7593
13.5 0.0191 0.7783
14.0 0.0167 0.7950
14.5 0.0148 0.8098
15.0 0.0134 0.8232
15.5 0.0123 0.8355
16.0 0.0116 0.8471
16.5 0.0110 0.8581
17.0 0.0105 0.8686
17.5 0.0103 0.8789
18.0 0.0103 0.8892
18.5 0.0104 0.8996
19.0 0.0105 0.9100
19.5 0.0105 0.9205
20.0 0.0104 0.9309
20.5 0.0102 0.9412
21.0 0.0100 0.9512
21.5 0.0097 0.9609
22.0 0.0093 0.9702
22.5 0.0087 0.9789
23.0 0.0083 0.9872

April 2019
Table 4C-8 Long-duration storm hyetograph values: Region 3 – Okanogan, Spokane, Palouse.
total.
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 23.5 0.0120 0.8972
0.5 0.0017 0.0017 24.0 0.0116 0.9088
1.0 0.0030 0.0047 24.5 0.0112 0.9200
1.5 0.0041 0.0088 25.0 0.0108 0.9308
2.0 0.0053 0.0141 25.5 0.0104 0.9412
2.5 0.0068 0.0209 26.0 0.0100 0.9512
3.0 0.0092 0.0301 26.5 0.0096 0.9607
3.5 0.0108 0.0409 27.0 0.0092 0.9699
4.0 0.0126 0.0535 27.5 0.0086 0.9785
4.5 0.0132 0.0667 28.0 0.0074 0.9859
5.0 0.0139 0.0806 28.5 0.0054 0.9913
5.5 0.0147 0.0952 29.0 0.0040 0.9953
6.0 0.0154 0.1106 29.5 0.0030 0.9983
6.5 0.0162 0.1268 30.0 0.0017 1.0000
7.0 0.0169 0.1437
7.5 0.0177 0.1614
8.0 0.0184 0.1798
8.5 0.0192 0.1990
9.0 0.0228 0.2219
9.5 0.0238 0.2457
10.0 0.0260 0.2717
10.5 0.0282 0.2999
11.0 0.0395 0.3394
11.5 0.0564 0.3958
12.0 0.0855 0.4813
12.5 0.0451 0.5265
13.0 0.0348 0.5612
13.5 0.0335 0.5948
14.0 0.0276 0.6223
14.5 0.0199 0.6422
15.0 0.0179 0.6601
15.5 0.0158 0.6759
16.0 0.0156 0.6915
16.5 0.0154 0.7069
17.0 0.0152 0.7221
17.5 0.0150 0.7372
18.0 0.0148 0.7519
18.5 0.0145 0.7664
19.0 0.0142 0.7806
19.5 0.0139 0.7945
20.0 0.0136 0.8081
20.5 0.0133 0.8215
21.0 0.0131 0.8346
21.5 0.0130 0.8475
22.0 0.0128 0.8603
22.5 0.0126 0.8729
23.0 0.0123 0.8852

April 2019
Table 4C-9 Long-duration storm hyetograph values: Region 4 – Northeastern Mountains and
Blue Mountains.
total.
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 23.0 0.0128 0.8697
0.5 0.0015 0.0015 23.5 0.0127 0.8825
1.0 0.0031 0.0046 24.0 0.0127 0.8951
1.5 0.0047 0.0094 24.5 0.0126 0.9077
2.0 0.0064 0.0158 25.0 0.0124 0.9201
2.5 0.0082 0.0239 25.5 0.0121 0.9322
3.0 0.0104 0.0343 26.0 0.0116 0.9438
3.5 0.0115 0.0458 26.5 0.0109 0.9547
4.0 0.0123 0.0581 27.0 0.0101 0.9647
4.5 0.0130 0.0711 27.5 0.0090 0.9738
5.0 0.0137 0.0848 28.0 0.0077 0.9814
5.5 0.0145 0.0993 28.5 0.0061 0.9875
6.0 0.0152 0.1145 29.0 0.0051 0.9926
6.5 0.0160 0.1305 29.5 0.0045 0.9971
7.0 0.0167 0.1472 30.0 0.0029 1.0000
7.5 0.0174 0.1646
8.0 0.0182 0.1828
8.5 0.0190 0.2019
9.0 0.0207 0.2226
9.5 0.0232 0.2458
10.0 0.0260 0.2717
10.5 0.0278 0.2996
11.0 0.0399 0.3394
11.5 0.0531 0.3925
12.0 0.0796 0.4722
12.5 0.0441 0.5162
13.0 0.0329 0.5492
13.5 0.0303 0.5795
14.0 0.0291 0.6086
14.5 0.0199 0.6284
15.0 0.0166 0.6451
15.5 0.0155 0.6606
16.0 0.0153 0.6759
16.5 0.0151 0.6910
17.0 0.0149 0.7059
17.5 0.0148 0.7207
18.0 0.0146 0.7353
18.5 0.0144 0.7496
19.0 0.0142 0.7639
19.5 0.0140 0.7779
20.0 0.0137 0.7915
20.5 0.0134 0.8049
21.0 0.0132 0.8181
21.5 0.0131 0.8312
22.0 0.0129 0.8441
22.5 0.0129 0.8570

April 2019
4C-6 Precipitation Magnitude for 24-Hour and Long- and

Short-Duration Runoff Treatment Storm
The frequency of the long-duration runoff treatment storm is a 6-month recurrence interval or
twice per year return period. Unfortunately, the NOAA Atlas 2 maps require the conversion of
2-year, 24-hour precipitation to 6-month, 24-hour precipitation.
Use the following equation to determine the 6-month precipitation:
Pwqs = Cwqs (P2yr24hr)
where: Pwqs is the 24-hour precipitation (inches) for the 6-month storm
recurrence interval; this precipitation is used with the long-duration
storm hyetograph or 24-hour SCS (NRCS) Type IA or Type II hyetographs,
depending on the design storm option selected by the jurisdiction;
Cwqs is a coefficient from Table 4C-10 for computing the 6-month,
24-hour precipitation based on the climatic region; and
P2yr24hr is the 2-year, 24-hour precipitation in Appendix 4A.
Values of the coefficient Cwqs are shown in Table 4C-10 for all four regions.
Table 4C-10 Coefficients Cwqs for computing 6-month, 24-hour precipitation.
Region # Region Name Cwqs

1 East Slope Cascades 0.70
2 Central Basin 0.66
3 Okanogan, Spokane, Palouse 0.69
4 NE & Blue Mountains 0.70
4C-7 Precipitation Magnitude for Long-Duration Storms

Table 4C-11 provides the multipliers, by region, for the conversion of the 24-hour precipitation
to the regional long-duration storm precipitation. Using the precipitation values from the
isopluvial maps and the conversion factor in Table 4C-11, the precipitation can be adjusted for
the long-duration hyetograph. The design of volume-based BMPs requires the regional long-
duration storm in Regions 1 and 4. For Regions 2 and 4, designers can choose either the SCS
Type 1A storm distribution or the regional long-duration storm. When the Type 1A storm
distribution is used, the conversion factors in Table 4C-11 do not apply.

April 2019
Table 4C-11 Conversion factor for 24-hour to regional long-duration storm precipitation.
Region # Region Name Conversion Factor

1 East Slope Cascades 1.16
2 Central Basin 1.00
3 Okanogan, Spokane, Palouse 1.06
4 NE & Blue Mountains 1.07
Use the following equation to determine the long-duration precipitation for a selected
return period:
Psds = CF (PN-yr 24-hr)
where: Psds is the precipitation (inches) adjusted for a selected long-duration
hyetograph;
CF is a conversion factor from Table 4C-11, by region, for converting the
24-hour precipitation to the regional long-duration storm precipitation; and
PN-yr 24-hr is the precipitation from the isopluvial maps for N years and
24 hours, Appendix 4A.
4C-8 Precipitation Magnitude for Short-Duration Storms

The only mapped frequency of the short-duration storm is a 2-year, 2-hour recurrence interval.
The design of flow-based treatment BMPs using the Single Event Hydrograph Model requires
conversion of the 2-year, 2-hour precipitation to the 6-month, 2-hour precipitation. The design
of other BMPs or conveyance elements based on the short-duration storm could also require
the conversion of the 2-year, 2-hour precipitation to a different recurrence interval.
Use the following equation to determine the 3-hour precipitation for a selected return period:
Psds = Csds (P2yr2hr)
where: Psds is the 3-hour precipitation (inches) for a selected return period
for the short-duration storm;
Csds is a coefficient from Table 4C-12 for computing the 2-hour
precipitation for a selected return period based on the 2-year,
2-hour precipitation; and
P2yr2hr is the 2-year, 2-hour precipitation in Appendix 4A.
Values of the coefficient Csds are based on the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distribution,
whose distribution parameters can be expressed as a function of mean annual precipitation for
eastern Washington. Table 4C-12 lists values of the coefficient Csds for selected return periods
for various magnitudes of mean annual precipitation. The web link for an isopluvial map of
mean annual precipitation is in Appendix 4A (use the map to determine the mean annual
precipitation for the site).

April 2019
Table 4C-12 Precipitation for selected return periods (Csds).
Mean Annual
Region # Precipitation 6-Month 1-Year 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year
(in.)
6-8 0.65 0.84 1.06 1.73 2.30 2.84 3.49
8-10 0.66 0.85 1.06 1.70 2.22 2.70 3.28
2 10-12 0.68 0.86 1.06 1.65 2.14 2.59 3.10
2, 3 12-16 0.70 0.87 1.06 1.60 2.01 2.40 2.82
3 16-22 0.71 0.88 1.06 1.56 1.93 2.26 2.63
22-28 0.73 0.89 1.06 1.52 1.84 2.13 2.45
28-40 0.74 0.90 1.06 1.48 1.78 2.04 2.32
40-60 0.76 0.91 1.06 1.44 1.71 1.93 2.17
1, 4 60-120 0.78 0.92 1.06 1.41 1.64 1.84 2.05

April 2019
Appendix 4D Contents
4D-1 Infiltration Design Concepts ............................................................................................. 4-1

4D-2 Roles, Responsibilities, and Design Process for Infiltration Design .................................... 4-4
4D-3 Geotechnical Investigation Requirements ........................................................................ 4-8
4D-4 Determination of Ksat ...................................................................................................... 4-10
4D-4.1 Ksat Based on Soil Gradation ......................................................................... 4-11
4D-4.2 Ksat Based on Laboratory Tests ..................................................................... 4-13
4D-4.3 Ksat Based on Field Tests .............................................................................. 4-15
4D-4.4 Units Conversions for Ksat ............................................................................ 4-16
4D-4.5 Determination of Ksat for Layered Soils......................................................... 4-17
4D-5 Determination of Hydraulic Gradient Applicable to BMP ................................................ 4-18
4D-6 Determination of Design Infiltration Rate for BMP ......................................................... 4-20
4D-7 Sizing the Infiltration Facility .......................................................................................... 4-22
4D-8 Determining Infiltration Rates for Soil Amendment BMPs .............................................. 4-23
4D-9 References ..................................................................................................................... 4-25
List of Tables
Table 4D-1 Laboratory test methods for measuring Ksat. ............................................................... 4-14
Table 4D-2 Infiltration rate reduction factors to account for biofouling and siltation effects
for ponds (Massmann, 2003a). .................................................................................... 4-21
List of Figures
Figure 4D-1 Groundwater mound concept (typical for western Washington). .................................. 4-2
Figure 4D-2 Green-Ampt equation concept (typical for eastern Washington). .................................. 4-3
Figure 4D-3 Infiltration design process using the continuous hydrograph method, western
Washington. ................................................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 4D-4 Infiltration design process using the single hydrograph method, eastern Washington. .. 4-7
Figure 4D-5 Determination of depth to groundwater or low permeability layer, Dwt, for a CAVFS. .. 4-20
Figure 4D-6 Determining infiltration rate of soil amendments CAVFS, engineered dispersion,
bioinfiltration ponds, and infiltration ponds using topsoil or other engineered lining. . 4-24
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 4D-i

April 2019
Appendix 4D Infiltration Testing and Design
Infiltration is the first, and usually the best, choice for managing stormwater runoff. Infiltration is
required, where feasible, to meet the low-impact development (LID) requirements. However,
infiltration BMPs are often the most difficult to site correctly because of the necessary lead time
needed for infiltration rate testing and determination and groundwater monitoring, which takes a
minimum of one wet season. This appendix is provided to describe the roles of the various
offices for infiltration design, the basics of infiltration, what is required to assess the potential to
infiltrate stormwater at a proposed site, the laboratory and field testing methods used to
determine saturated hydraulic conductivities and infiltration rates, how to determine the
hydraulic gradient applicable for infiltration at a proposed site, and final selection of an
infiltration rate for design of the infiltration facility considering potential long-term performance
of the infiltration facility. Determination of design infiltration rates for all infiltration BMPs are
discussed. However, details of treatment design are not provided in this appendix.
4D-1 Infiltration Design Concepts

The infiltration rate f is a function of both the soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) and the
hydraulic gradient, i. Darcy’s Law for saturated systems is typically used to determine the
infiltration rate. Conceptually, Darcy’s Law is as follows:
𝑓𝑓 = 𝐾𝐾𝑖𝑖 (4D-1)
where: f = the infiltration rate of water through a unit cross section
of the infiltration facility
K = the permeability of the soil below the infiltration facility
(also termed Ksat)
i = the steady state hydraulic gradient = ∆h/∆z
∆h = head loss, or change in water pressure head between two
locations
∆z = change in elevation over which head loss occurs
K is essentially the rate at which the water will flow through the soil. Soil permeability and
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) are often used interchangeably. In this appendix, Ksat will
be used. For sites in which the soil below the infiltration BMP is in distinct layers, an average
value of Ksat will need to be used for infiltration design. This average value is Kequiv, which is
essentially the effective mean value of the Ksat for a layered soil system (see Section 4D-4.5 for
details). Ksat is an intrinsic property of a soil which is a function of its porosity and distribution
of soil grain sizes, which affect the diameter and tortuosity of the channels within the soil
through which the water must flow. Ksat is also a function of the viscosity of the water, which is
a function of the temperature of the groundwater. It is typically assumed that the groundwater
temperature and laboratory test temperature (if laboratory Ksat tests are conducted) are close
enough to each other that a correction for the temperature of the water is not needed.
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 4D-1

April 2019
Infiltration Testing and Design Appendix 4D
The hydraulic gradient, i, creates the driving force to infiltrate the stormwater. Essentially, the
hydraulic gradient is the difference in piezometric head across the length of flow between the
infiltration surface and the destination of the infiltrated water. For infiltration design, estimation
of the hydraulic gradient usually requires some simplifying assumptions. The usual assumptions
include:
• Flow is in the vertical direction.
• The system is saturated.
• The bottom end of the hydraulic gradient is either the groundwater table surface or the
surface of an aquiclude (i.e., a soil layer that has much lower permeability than the soil
above it).
The assumption that the flow is only in the vertical direction is usually conservative, as flow can
also occur in the horizontal direction. Furthermore, Ksat in the horizontal direction is usually
greater than Ksat in the vertical direction due to soil layering. The amount of lateral flow that
occurs is dependent on the BMP type and the BMP geometry.
Regarding saturation, the reality is that the soil below the infiltration surface is not always
completely saturated, especially early in the wet season. Lack of saturation will tend to increase
the hydraulic gradient. Therefore, assuming saturated conditions is usually conservative and also
tends to reflect what occurs when steady state conditions are achieved.
For cases where the groundwater table is relatively shallow, and especially if the soil is fine
grained, groundwater mounding can occur. Groundwater mounding is the local rise of the
groundwater surface beneath an area where stormwater runoff is concentrated, such as in an
infiltration BMP, resulting from water flowing into the soil at a greater rate than the infiltrated
water can be conveyed away from the infiltration BMP. Groundwater mounding can
significantly reduce the hydraulic gradient (i.e., a gradient significantly below 1.0) and thereby
reduce the infiltration rate. This situation is common in western Washington, and must be
considered for BMPs located in western Washington. Figure 4D-1 illustrates the concept of
groundwater mounding.
Figure 4D-1 Groundwater mound concept (typical for western Washington).
Page 4D-2 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
For cases where the groundwater table surface is deep, which is typical in eastern Washington,
the hydraulic gradient can usually be estimated using the Green-Ampt equation (Chin 2000):
𝐻𝐻0 +𝐿𝐿+ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
𝑓𝑓 = 𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 � � (4D-2)
𝐿𝐿
where,
H0 = depth of water in infiltration BMP (e.g., pond)
L = depth of the wetting front below the infiltration surface (e.g., pond bottom)
hwf = average capillary head at the wetting front, approx. equal to the air entry or bubbling
pressure
Figure 4D-2 illustrates the Green-Ampt equation variables.
Figure 4D-2 Green-Ampt equation concept (typical for eastern Washington).

The Green-Ampt infiltration model illustrates that initially, when the wetting front is still
relatively shallow, the hydraulic gradient could be significantly greater than 1.0, but as it
progresses deeper below the BMP, the hydraulic gradient approaches 1.0. Therefore, the
hydraulic gradient and infiltration rate starts high and decrease as a function of time until a
steady state value is obtained.
Once the infiltration rate is estimated, that rate needs to be corrected for infiltration facility
geometry, and long-term effects such as siltation and biofouling. Design for these issues are
addressed later in this appendix.
Links to the details of infiltration BMPs are as follows:
 Bioinfiltration pond (BMP IN.01)
 Infiltration pond (BMP IN.02)
 Infiltration trench (BMP IN.03)

April 2019
 Infiltration vault (BMP IN.04)

 Underlying soils of CAVFS (BMP RT.02)
 Drywell (BMP IN.05)
 Natural dispersion (BMP FC.01)
 Engineered dispersion (BMP FC.02)
4D-2 Roles, Responsibilities, and Design Process for

Infiltration Design
Determination of the infiltration rate and infiltration BMP design is a joint effort between the
geotechnical engineer, Region Hydraulics Engineer (RHE), and project engineering office (PEO)
tasked with design of the infiltration BMP. For the geotechnical engineer (the Region Materials
Engineer may act on behalf of the HQ Geotechnical Office for simpler cases as described in
Chapter 1 of the Geotechnical Design Manual), tasks include:
• the site subsurface soil and groundwater investigation,
• geotechnical laboratory testing and field testing,
• characterization of the subsurface stratigraphy,
• the recommended Ksat value(s) for the BMP,
• the location of the groundwater surface and any aquicludes present, and
• assessment of any geotechnical issues such as slope instability or seepage that may affect
the BMP performance or that may affect adjacent facilities.
For the RHE, tasks include:
• assessment of the stormwater volume that needs to be infiltrated to meet the flow control
and/or runoff treatment requirements, and
• assist the PEO with the final infiltration BMP design.
For the PEO, tasks include:
• identification of the potential locations for the infiltration BMP,
• working with resource agencies to address permit issues with infiltrating stormwater at
the selected BMP locations,
• identification of the type of BMP to be used,
• application of the Ksat recommendations from the geotechnical designer, including
determination of the hydraulic gradient, to size the BMP, and
• completion of all related work that affects the development of the project.
The typical infiltration design process is shown in Figure 4D-3 for western Washington and
Figure 4D-4 for eastern Washington.
If a Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) is to be performed (see Sections 4D-3 and 4D-4.3) and/or a
MODFLOW analysis is to be conducted (see Section 4D-6), the HQ Geotechnical Office must
be contacted for assistance. In this case, the typical infiltration design process is modified, as the
HQ Geotechnical Office (or geotechnical consultant) will complete some of the tasks normally
completed by the Region Materials Engineer and PEO, including the geotechnical site

April 2019
characterization, assessment of Ksat, and assessment of the hydraulic gradient to be used for
design of the BMP. If, after the MODFLOW analysis is conducted and the infiltration rate
determined from that analysis is provided to the PEO, and the PEO finds out that the original
BMP geometry must be significantly modified, the MODFLOW analysis may need to be rerun.
More guidance on selected parts of the typical process is shown below:

1. Select a location.
The PEO, with assistance from the RHE as needed, selects a location for the infiltration
BMP. This will be based on the ability to convey flow to the location and the expected soil
conditions. The BMP location must meet the minimum setback distances. (See Section 4-5.1
for Site Suitability Criteria and setback distances), and distance above the water table or
aquiclude (whichever is shallowest).
2. Develop a trial infiltration facility geometry.
To accomplish this, either assume an infiltration rate based on previously available data or
use a default infiltration rate of 0.3 inches/hour for western Washington or 0.5 inches/hour
for eastern Washington. Use a computer model and enter the tributary basin area contributing
to the infiltration BMP at the selected location. The model will compute the infiltration BMP
dimensions (length, width, and depth) to meet the runoff treatment or flow control
requirements. Eastern Washington uses StormShed3G, a single event hydrograph model
based on the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph method to compute the stormwater volume.
Western Washington uses MGSFlood, a continuous simulation hydrograph model to estimate
the stormwater volume. (See Section 4-3 for western Washington and Section 4-4 for eastern
Washington methodologies.) Use this trial geometry to help locate the facility and for
planning purposes in developing the geotechnical subsurface investigation plan.
3. Conduct a geotechnical investigation.
Conduct a geotechnical investigation to evaluate the site’s suitability for infiltration, to
establish the infiltration rate for design, and to evaluate slope stability, foundation capacity,
and other geotechnical design information needed to design and assess the constructability of
the facility. To accomplish this, the region project office should request a geotechnical
investigation from the Region Materials Engineer (RME). If it appears that geotechnical
complications are present that require input from the HQ Geotechnical Office, the RME will
engage the Geotechnical Office. Note that since a full winter season of groundwater data
is usually required to complete the geotechnical design of the infiltration BMP, it is
important to initiate the geotechnical investigation as early as possible in the project.
4. Size the BMP.
To accomplish this, the PEO uses the information provided in the geotechnical report, such
as the recommended saturated hydraulic conductivity and depth to the water table or
aquiclude (whichever is shallowest), as well as any other geotechnical recommendations,
such as stable slope angle, to determine the applicable infiltration rate and complete the BMP
design. Consider BMP geometry and long-term effects such as biofouling or siltation to
determine the final infiltration rate and BMP size required. Check the Site Suitability
Criteria (Section 4-5.1) to make sure all relevant requirements are met.

April 2019
PEO selects an infiltration BMP and PEO (and RHE) The geotechnical engineer determines subsurface
determines BMP location. PEO determines initial investigation plan based on infiltration BMP size
determines tributary basin(s) to the infiltration BMP size, and location:
BMP and goes to continuous simulation assuming a conservative • How many test pits or test holes and how
model (MGSFlood) to get an idea of the infiltration rate (0.3 in/ deep to dig
infiltration BMP size. hr or see RHE) • Location of piezometers and monitoring wells
• Field and laboratory testing requirements to
determine soil properties
The geotechnical engineer determines
the saturated hydraulic conductivity
Ksat below the infiltration BMP The geotechnical engineer The geotechnical engineer determines
following Section 4D-4 and using: determines the depth to the soil stratigraphy, Ksat for each layer,
• Soil grain sizes seasonal high water table below the Kequiv for BMP design, depth to water
• Laboratory tests final bottom elevation of the table or aquiclude, and assessment of
• Field tests infiltration BMP based on facility stability and seepage potential
• Soil layering piezometer readings or other to the PEO. See Sections 4D-4.1
available data (see Section 4D-3). through 4D-1.4.5.
Is this engineered dispersion, CAVFS, or an See Section 4D-8 to determine final infiltration Is this an
infiltration pond that uses soil amendments or YES
rate of BMP based on the lower of the 1) engineered
an engineered soil mix to meet runoff treatment amended soil or engineered soil mix final dispersion
requirements? infiltration rate OR 2) final infiltration rate of the design?
YES
underlying soils.
NO NO
Is this natural
dispersion
YES
design? Determine the required size
NO of the dispersion BMP based
on BMP design criteria in the
Did the geotechnical engineer perform a groundwater
HRM.
analysis and calculate the infiltration rate f ?
YES
NO
PEO calculates hydraulic gradient i per Section 4D-5. MGSFlood does this
automatically based on the depth to groundwater and the infiltration BMP type.
Is this an PEO uses Equation 4D-15 to determine CFaspect based on infiltration pond’s aspect
infiltration YES ratio (length to width). The PEO applies CFaspect directly to the infiltration rate per
pond design? equation 4D-16. If using MGSFlood, the software applies it automatically.
NO
Is this an
infiltration pond, PEO uses Table 4D-2 (for Drywells, see Section 4D-6) to
infiltration determine CFsilt/bio based on infiltration BMP’s location, degree
trench, or YES of long term maintenance and performance monitoring. The
drywell design? PEO applies these factors directly to the infiltration rate and
BMP design in the MGSFlood modeling software.
NO
PEO uses Equation 4D-16 to calculate the Size the infiltration BMP to meet
final infiltration rate f for the infiltration any applicable drawdown
Construct the facility
BMP. MGSFlood will calculate the final requirements per SSC6 in Section
infiltration rate automatically based on 4-5.1
infiltration BMP type, depth to ground
water, gradient, and above corrections
factors. Size the infiltration BMP for Maintain the infiltration BMP and verify
compliance with runoff treatment and/or performance. Retrofit the BMP if
flow control standards. performance is inadequate.
Figure 4D-3 Infiltration design process using the continuous hydrograph method, western
Washington.

April 2019
PEO selects an infiltration BMP and PEO (and RHE) The geotechnical engineer determines subsurface
determines BMP location. PEO determines initial investigation plan based on infiltration BMP size
determines tributary basin(s) to the infiltration BMP size, and location:
BMP and goes to single event assuming a conservative • How many test pits or test holes and how
hydrograph model (StormShed3G) to infiltration rate (0.5 in/ deep to dig
get an idea of the infiltration BMP size. hr or see RHE) • Location of piezometers and monitoring wells
• Field and laboratory testing requirements to
determine soil properties
The geotechnical engineer determines
the saturated hydraulic conductivity
Ksat below the infiltration BMP The geotechnical engineer The geotechnical engineer determines
following Section 4D-4 and using: determines the depth to the soil stratigraphy, Ksat for each layer,
• Soil grain sizes seasonal high water table below the Kequiv for BMP design, depth to water
• Laboratory tests final bottom elevation of the table or aquiclude, and assessment of
• Field tests infiltration BMP based on facility stability and seepage potential
• Soil layering piezometer readings or other to the PEO. See Sections 4D-4.1
available data (see Section 4D-3). through 4D-1.4.5.
Is this engineered dispersion, CAVFS, a See Section 4D-8 to determine final infiltration Is this an
bioinfiltration pond, or an infiltration pond that YES
rate of BMP based on the lower of the 1) engineered
uses soil amendments or an engineered soil mix amended soil or engineered soil mix final dispersion
to meet runoff treatment requirements? infiltration rate OR 2) final infiltration rate of the design? YES
NO underlying soils. NO
Is this a natural dispersion design? YES

Determine the required size
NO of the dispersion BMP based
Did the geotechnical engineer perform a groundwater on BMP design criteria in the
analysis and calculate the infiltration rate f ? YES HRM.
NO
PEO calculates hydraulic gradient i per Section 4D-5
Is this an PEO uses Equation 4D-15 to determine CFaspect based on infiltration

infiltration YES pond’s aspect ratio (length to width). The PEO applies CFaspect
pond design? directly to the infiltration rate per equation 4D-16.
NO
Is this an infiltration pond,

infiltration trench, or
drywell design? YES PEO uses Table 4D-2 (for Drywells, see Section
4D-6) to determine CFsilt/bio based on infiltration
NO
BMP’s location, degree of long term
maintenance and performance monitoring.
PEO uses Equation 4D-16 to

calculate the final infiltration rate f Size the infiltration BMP to meet
for the infiltration BMP and goes to any applicable drawdown Construct the facility
single event hydrograph model requirements per SSC6 in Section
(StormShed3G) to size the 4-5.1
infiltration BMP for compliance
with runoff treatment and/or flow Maintain the infiltration BMP and verify
control standards. performance. Retrofit the BMP if
performance is inadequate.
Figure 4D-4 Infiltration design process using the single hydrograph method, eastern
Washington.

April 2019
4D-3 Geotechnical Investigation Requirements

The geotechnical engineer determines the subsurface exploration requirements, including depth
and spacing of test holes, locations of piezometers needed for groundwater measurement and
monitoring, as well as field and laboratory testing requirements to determine soil properties
needed for design. Subsurface exploration and testing needed for infiltration BMPs are as
follows:
 For infiltration ponds, ensure at least one test pit or test hole per 5,000 ft2 of basin
infiltrating bottom surface area is obtained, but there should be a minimum of 2 test pits
or holes per pond. For infiltration trenches, infiltration vaults, and CAVFS, ensure at least
one test pit or test hole per 100 to 300 feet of length is obtained. In both cases, test holes
or test pits should extend to a depth below the infiltration facility of 5 times the maximum
design depth of the ponded water, but not less than 10 ft below the base of the facility.
Continuously sample to a depth below the base of the infiltration facility of 2.5 times the
maximum design depth of water proposed for the infiltration facility, or at least 2 feet
into the saturated zone, but not less than 10 feet below the base of the facility. Ensure
samples obtained are adequate for the purpose of soil gradation/ classification testing.
 For drywells, obtain subsurface explorations (test holes or test pits) to a depth below the
base of the drywell of at least 5 times the maximum design depth of water proposed for
the drywell, but not less than 30 ft. If the ground water table is less than 30 ft below the
base of the drywell, go at least 2 feet into the saturated zone. Collect samples from each
layer beneath the facility to the depth of groundwater or to approximately 40 feet below
the ground surface (approximately 30 feet below the base of the drywell), whichever is
less. Ensure samples obtained are adequate for the purpose of soil gradation/
classification testing.
 Install groundwater monitoring wells to locate the groundwater table and establish its
gradient, direction of flow, and seasonal variations, considering both confined and
unconfined aquifers. Monitoring through at least one wet season is required unless site
historical data regarding groundwater levels are available. In general, a minimum of three
wells per infiltration facility, or three hydraulically connected surface or groundwater
features, are needed to determine the direction of flow and gradient. If gradient and flow
direction are not required and there is low risk of down gradient impacts, one monitoring
well is sufficient. You may consider alternative means of establishing the groundwater
levels. If the groundwater in the area is known to be greater than 50 feet below the
proposed facility, detailed investigation of the groundwater regime is not necessary. If
the groundwater depth is less than 50 ft, but the groundwater depth is well known from
existing nearby wells, detailed investigation of the groundwater regime may also not be
necessary. Approval to take this approach (i.e., not do the piezometer installation(s))
shall be obtained from the HQ Hydraulics and Geotechnical offices.
 Conduct laboratory testing as necessary to establish the soil gradation characteristics and
other properties to complete the infiltration facility design. At a minimum, conduct one
grain-size analysis per soil stratum in each test hole within 2.5 times the maximum design
water depth, but not less than 10 feet below the bottom of the proposed facility. When
assessing the saturated hydraulic conductivity characteristics of the site, consider soil
layers at greater depths if the licensed professional conducting the investigation
determines that deeper layers will influence the rate of infiltration for the facility,

April 2019
requiring soil gradation/classification testing for layers deeper than indicated above. For
soils with more than 10% fines, in addition to standard soil gradations, hydrometer
analyses should also be conducted so that the d10 size (i.e., grain size diameter in which
10% of the particles, by weight, are finer) can be determined.
 If it is feasible to obtain undisturbed soil samples (e.g., Shelby tube samples – this applies
to silts and clayey silts), laboratory saturated hydraulic conductivity tests should be
conducted to improve the accuracy of the Ksat and porosity determination.
 For sites in which the soils below the BMP base to be infiltrated have more than 10 to
15% fines (e.g., silty sands and sandy silts), a Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) should be
conducted. See Section 4D-4.3 for additional details and requirements for conducting
and interpreting this test. If the base of the infiltration facility cannot be reached by the
PIT, then a borehole infiltration test should be conducted. Note that if this test is
conducted, the HQ Geotechnical Office must be contacted so that a MODFLOW analysis
can be conducted as an aid in interpreting and applying the test results to the design of the
infiltration BMP (see Section 4D-6).
Increase the depth, number of test holes or test pits, and sampling and testing described
below if a licensed engineer with geotechnical expertise (P.E.), or other licensed
professional acceptable to WSDOT, judges that conditions are highly variable and
make it necessary to increase the depth or the number of explorations, and testing, to
accurately estimate the infiltration system’s performance. You may decrease the
exploration and testing program described below if a licensed engineer with
geotechnical expertise (P.E.), or other licensed professional acceptable to WSDOT,
judges that conditions are relatively uniform; design parameters are known to be
conservative based on site-specific data or experience; and the borings/ test pits omitted
will not influence the design or successful operation of the facility. For design build
projects, ensure the exploration program described below is approved by the WSDOT
HQ Geotechnical Office prior to implementation.
From the geotechnical investigation, determine the following, as applicable:
 The stratification of the soil/rock below the infiltration facility, including the soil
gradation (and plasticity, if any) characteristics of each stratum.
 The depth to the groundwater table and to any bedrock/impermeable layers.
 Seasonal variation of the groundwater table.
 The existing groundwater flow direction and gradient.
 The porosity of the soil below the infiltration facility, but above the water table see
Equations 4D-4 through 4D-6).
 The saturated hydraulic conductivity or the infiltration rate for the soil/rock at the
infiltration facility (determine using Eq. 4D-3, or measure directly).
 The lateral extent of the infiltration receptor.
 The impact of the infiltration rate and volume on flow direction and water table at the
project site and the potential discharge point or area of the infiltrating water.
For other aspects of the geotechnical design of infiltration facilities, see Chapters 2 and 5.

April 2019
Use of Regional Geological Information and “Nearby” Test Hole Data: Geologic
information may be available from regional subsurface geology maps in publications from the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or the U.S. Geological Survey; from a well borehole
log(s) on Ecology’s website; or from local governments. Surface soil maps generally do not
provide adequate information. Verify well borehole log locations because electronic databases
may contain errors regarding well log location.
In general, test hole drilling or test pits should be obtained at the infiltration site. If the project is
small and obtaining test hole or test pit data at the site is cost prohibitive, use of borehole logs
from a “nearby” site may be considered, provided subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the
proposed facility are fairly uniform and predictable. However, subsurface conditions can vary
considerably in a very short horizontal distance. Therefore, the professional judgment of a
licensed engineer with geotechnical expertise (P.E.) is required to determine whether nearby
subsurface data are acceptable to use in combination with some conservative design
assumptions, subject to the approval of the HQ Geotechnical Office.
4D-4 Determination of Ksat

There are three approaches that can be used to determine Ksat below a proposed infiltration BMP.
These approaches are as follows:
1. Perform grain size analyses and use correlations between grain size distribution and Ksat.
2. Conduct Ksat laboratory tests to measure Ksat directly for specimens taken from the soil
column during the geotechnical subsurface field investigation.
3. Use field tests to measure Ksat in-situ.
The first approach is the most commonly used. In this approach, soil gradation testing is used to
determine key parameters such as the d10 size. The advantage of this approach is that all the soil
layers within the entire soil column below the BMP can easily be characterized regarding their
Ksat values. Furthermore, the cost of such testing and analysis is low compared to the other
options.
The second approach, laboratory Ksat testing, is only applicable to finer grained soils such as silts
and clayey silts, to test the soil in its undisturbed state and accurately reflect the soil density and
the effect of the finer soil layering in-situ. Laboratory Ksat tests can also be conducted on
disturbed soil samples reconstituted in the lab which will reflect the average soil gradation in
each soil layer and the approximate soil density based on Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs)
conducted during test hole drilling, but will not take into account any localized layering.
For the third approach, Ksat/infiltration tests conducted in the field, accuracy in estimating Ksat
depends on the type of test and how it is conducted. Field tests in general do not directly
measure Ksat, but instead measure the infiltration rate that is the product of the soil Ksat and the
test hydraulic gradient. For field tests, the test hydraulic gradient is likely not the same as the
hydraulic gradient for the infiltration BMP. Each field test has its limitations (e.g., limited
depth) and sources of inaccuracy (e.g., a test hydraulic gradient that is difficult to know with
certainty).

April 2019
4D-4.1 Ksat Based on Soil Gradation

There are many equations in the literature which correlate certain soil gradation parameters to
Ksat (e.g., see Chapuis 2012). WSDOT research has been conducted to investigate the most
promising Ksat predictive equations to assess and improve Ksat prediction accuracy using soils
commonly encountered in WSDOT projects (Massmann 2003a; Allen 2017, 2018). Based on
that research, if a grain size based correlation is used, Ksat on WSDOT projects should be
estimated using the optimized Slichter Equation as developed in Allen (2017):
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 21.2η3.5 𝑑𝑑10
1.75
(4D-3)
where,
Ksat = the saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm/s)
η = porosity
d10 = the grain size (mm) at which 10% of the material passes by weight
The other Ksat prediction equations recommended in Allen (2017), i.e., the “optimized Terzaghi”
and “optimized Chapuis” equations, may also be used in lieu Eq. 4D-3.
The use of this equation, and related equations to estimate Ksat, requires all of the provisions in
this Highway Runoff Manual regarding geotechnical subsurface sampling and testing be met,
and that the work be accomplished by an engineer or engineering geologist with geotechnical
expertise. Please note at this time, the use of the optimized Slichter method (and other
equations in Allen 2017) are only for use by WSDOT on WSDOT projects. The optimized
Slichter method (and other equations in Allen 2017) are not currently within the SWMMWW,
SWMMEW, or other Ecology approved equivalent manuals. These Manuals are intended to
provide jurisdictions with technically sound stormwater management practices which are
presumed to protect water quality and instream habitat, and meet the stated environmental
objectives of the regulations described in the SWMMWW and SWMMEW.
Jurisdictions always have the option of not following the stormwater management practices in
the SWMMWW, SWMMEW, or other Ecology approved equivalent manuals. However, if a
project proponent chooses not to follow the practices in those Manuals, then the project
proponent may be required to individually demonstrate and document that the project will not
adversely impact water quality by collecting and providing appropriate supporting data to show
that the alternative approach is protective of water quality and satisfies State and federal water
quality laws. Ecology, EPA, or a third party may review such documentation to ensure that they
satisfy those laws.

April 2019
It may be difficult to obtain a measured porosity or void ratio to be used as input to Equation 4D-
3. If measured porosities or void ratios are not available, the porosity can be estimated as
follows (Allen 2017, 2018):
η = P x d10a x Cub x (Fcp) + 0.0015(PI) (4D-4)
where,
P = empirical porosity coefficient (P = 0.4)
a = empirical d10 exponent (a = -0.08)
Cu = soil coefficient of uniformity = d60/d10
d60 = the grain size at which 60% of the material passes by weight
b = empirical coefficient of uniformity coefficient (b = -0.1)
Fcp = compaction factor for porosity (set equal to 1.0 if not compacted or is loose)
PI = soil plasticity index
Note that for non-plastic soils (PI = 0), the plasticity term drops out of the equation.
For compacted and otherwise dense soils (e.g., moderately to highly overconsolidated), Fcp is
estimated as follows:
Fcp = Cfd10c (4D-5)
where,
Fcp = porosity compaction factor
Cf = compaction factor coefficient (Cf = 0.85)
c = compaction factor exponent (c = 0.08)
Using the porosity equations, for a range of d10 values from 0.001 mm to 1 mm, Fcp ranges from
0.49 to 0.85, respectively. The reduction in porosity due to compaction, therefore, is
approximately 50% for silts, and once d10 is at 10 mm or more (coarse gravels), there is no effect
of compaction on the porosity. Using Eq. 4D-3, this change in porosity due to compaction
results in a change in Ksat as follows:
• At d10 = 0.001 mm, Ksat reduction (i.e., Ksat compacted/Ksat loose) is by a factor of
approximately 0.083.
• At d10 = 1 mm, Ksat reduction is by a factor of approximately 0.57.
Fcp should be set equal to 1.0 if the soil is not compacted, or for natural soils as deposited that are
normally consolidated or lightly over-consolidated. Note that for compacted or dense soils, it is
possible to calculate a value of Fcp that is greater than 1.0. In such cases, Fcp should also be set
equal to 1.0.
For compacted soils, the combination of equations. 4D-4 and 4D-5 simplifies to:
η = 0.34Cu-0.1 + 0.0015PI (4D-6)

April 2019
For embankment fill materials, a measured soil porosity can be obtained from nuclear
densometer readings conducted in accordance with WSDOT SOP 615 (WSDOT 2016) obtained
for the as compacted fill (or at least verified as the fill is placed). When using the nuclear
densometer to obtain compaction information, the following equation can be used to determine
the soil porosity:
η = [Gs(γw/γd) – 1]/(Gs(γw/γd)) (4D-7)
where,
Gs = specific gravity of solids
γw = unit weight of water, and
γd = dry unit weight of soil
Typically, Gs is 2.65 to 2.67 for sands and gravels, and for cohesive soil mixtures is 2.68 to 2.72
(see Table 2-1 in Bowles 1979). However, it is possible that Gs could be larger or smaller than
this.
It is also possible to use a laboratory compaction test of the proposed fill material to at least
bracket the range of porosity of the fill material to be used if a sample of the fill material is
available in advance.
For existing (natural) subsurface soils, if it is possible to obtain undisturbed samples (i.e., for
soils that are not too coarse), soil density, moisture content, and porosity values can be obtained
in the laboratory. If undisturbed soil samples cannot be obtained, porosity can be estimated
using soil grain size parameters as presented earlier, considering the density of the soil. To
determine Fcp for existing natural subsurface soils (i.e., setting Fcp = 1.0 for “uncompacted” soil
or using Eq. 4D-5 for “compacted” soils), the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N160 values
obtained for each soil layer can be used. If the SPT N160 value is 10 blows/ft or less, the soil can
be considered “uncompacted and Fcp can be set equal to 1.0. If the SPT N160 value is 30 blows/ft
or more, the soil can be considered “compacted” and Fcp is determined using Eq. 4D-5. If the
SPT N160 values are between these two values, the value of Fcp can be interpolated between these
two N160 values The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts should be corrected for
hammer efficiency and overburden stress to obtain N160 (see Section 5.5 in the WSDOT
Geotechnical Design Manual – WSDOT 2015).
4D-4.2 Ksat Based on Laboratory Tests

If the soil is fine grained enough that obtaining undisturbed soil samples is feasible (e.g., sandy
silts to clayey silts), Ksat can be measured directly in the laboratory through flex-wall
permeability tests conducted on an undisturbed specimen obtained from a Shelby tube sample.
As part of the testing protocol, the specimen unit weight, porosity, specific gravity of solids, and
soil gradation (including a hydrometer test to extend the soil gradation curve to silt and clay size
particles) should be obtained after permeability testing. Test procedures needed are as follows:

April 2019
Table 4D-1 Laboratory test methods for measuring Ksat.

ASTM C-136-06 Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates
ASTM D7263-09 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit
Weight) of Soil Specimens
ASTM D7928-17 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of
Fine-Grained Soils Using Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis
ASTM D854-14 Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Solids by Water
Pycnometer
ASTM D5084-16a Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials
Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter, Method C – Falling Head, Rising
Tailwater
The advantages of laboratory Ksat tests in determining Ksat relative to the other approaches
include preservation of the existing in-situ soil structure and density, certainty of the applied
hydraulic gradient and the direction of the gradient relative to the existing soil structure (usually
in the vertical direction), and the a ability to measure Ksat for discrete soil layers at any depth
below the infiltration BMP. The Ksat value and hydraulic gradient in the vertical direction are
usually most important for typical infiltration design. While it is possible to measure the soil
permeability in the horizontal direction and model the infiltration both vertically and
horizontally, such modeling requires analysis using a numerical modeling approach such as done
by MODFLOW. This type of modeling is highly specialized and requires considerable
experience. The disadvantage of laboratory Ksat testing is the cost, as this type of testing is more
expensive than just doing soil gradation testing. Furthermore, for testing of undisturbed soil
specimens, only high silt content soils can be tested.
Laboratory Ksat testing can be performed on disturbed soil specimens for coarser grained soils
such as sands and gravels. Such testing may be useful to supplement Ksat determination from
gradation data alone (e.g., Equation 4D-3). For near surface soil layers, bag samples from test
pit excavations can be used to reconstitute soil specimens for laboratory Ksat testing. For deeper
soil layers, since typical SPT samples are relatively small, a sample size necessary for the Ksat
testing may need to be created by combining multiple samples in the same layer. Most important
if doing disturbed soil specimen Ksat testing is uniformity of the specimen creation technique and
the density achieved in the specimen as placed in the testing device. Proper saturation of the
specimen as placed in the testing device is also important, as during specimen placement, air is
trapped within the soil matrix. Since the in-situ soil density for existing soil deposits is not
known with certainty, other than what can be estimated from SPT tests during test hole drilling,
the advantage of doing disturbed soil sample testing over estimating Ksat from grain size data is
minimal. However, for existing fill soils, the soil density can be known through field nuclear
densometer measurements (WSDOT SOP 615) and laboratory compaction tests (i.e., AASHTO
T99-17 and T180-15). Therefore, disturbed soil testing of existing fill soil can be advantageous
over grain size analysis alone. In this case, either rigid-wall (AASHTO T-215-14) or flex-wall
(ASTM D5084-16a) permeameter testing can be used depending on how coarse grained the soil
is. For examples of disturbed soil specimen preparation procedures, see Allen (2017) and
Chapuis (2012).

April 2019
4D-4.3 Ksat Based on Field Tests

Field tests that can estimate Ksat values include:
• The double ring infiltrometer test (ASTM D3385),
• Borehole tests, including the slug test (ASTM D4044 and D4104), and seepage tests, and
• The pilot infiltration test (PIT), as described in the Washington State Department of
Ecology’s (Ecology’s) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
(SWMMWW).
See Loehr, et al. (2016), Mayne et al. (2002), and ASTM D4043 (2017) for a good summary of
various field tests used to determine Ksat. Overall, these field tests generally provide a saturated
hydraulic conductivity combined with a hydraulic gradient (see Darcy’s Law, Equation 4D-1). In
some of these field tests, the hydraulic gradient may be close to 1.0. For this condition, Darcy’s
Law would show that the Ksat would be nearly equal to the infiltration rate of that soil layer. It is
important to recognize that the gradient in these field tests may not be the same as the gradient
likely to occur in the full-scale infiltration facility in the long term (especially when groundwater
mounding is fully developed). Evaluate this issue on a case-by-case basis when interpreting the
results of field tests.
More specific descriptions and advantages/disadvantages for each type of field test are as
follows:
• Double ring infiltrometer test: This test consists of a 2 to 3 ft diameter cylinder
inserted into the ground with a second larger diameter cylinder inserted around the first
cylinder. See ASTM D3385 for details. Usually, this test is done near the base of the
infiltration BMP (e.g., pond bottom). Given that it is relatively small scale, the
measurements from this test only represent the infiltration characteristics of the surficial
soil. Depending on how many infiltrometer tests are done, the results may be more
influenced by local variability of the soil. The hydraulic gradient in this test tends to be
fairly high (close to 1.0), which means that the result is fairly close to Ksat of those
surficial soils. Comparisons conducted by Allen (2017) demonstrate that this is likely the
case. Since the hydraulic gradient for infiltration BMPs located in western Washington
sites tends to be much less than 1.0, this test will predict much higher infiltration rates
than are likely to be observed in the full scale BMP.
• Borehole tests: These tests utilize the test hole(s) drilled during the subsurface
geotechnical site investigation. There are several variations of this type of test as
identified previously. This type of test generally provides a bulk, or possibly horizontal,
Ksat value. The advantage of this type of test include the ability to get Ksat measurement
data deeper in the soil profile below the BMP for each main soil layer. However, it may
be difficult to determine the hydraulic gradient. Furthermore, the test results for this type
of test can be strongly influenced by near well conditions such as the gravel pack, poor
well development, and disturbance during drilling of the borehole surface (i.e., “skin”).
Therefore, driller experience may be crucial to getting good test results.

April 2019
• Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT): This test consists of excavating a test pit with a backhoe,
then adding water to measure how rapidly the water is infiltrated. While larger scale than
the double ring infiltrometer, it still primarily obtains infiltration data in the near surface
soils (i.e., within 10 to 20 ft of the base of the infiltration BMP). Enough water must be
added to the pit to keep the water level approximately 1 ft deep above the pit bottom for a
minimum of 6 hours, but more typically 17 hours. Because of the amount of water and
time required, this test can become rather costly, especially if more than one PIT is
needed to characterize the infiltration BMP soils (i.e., to address soil variability). The
test is modeled assuming one-dimensional vertical groundwater flow. However, in
reality, at least some lateral flow is likely, possibly causing the infiltrated volume and rate
to be higher than it should be because of the analysis model used. Furthermore, the
hydraulic gradient in the test may not be the same as will occur in the full scale BMP. In
general, the hydraulic gradient in this test may be difficult to determine, which could
cloud the determination of Ksat from this test, if the determination of Ksat is the objective.
This needs to be considered when making conclusions from the test regarding the
measured infiltration rate and Ksat and how it applies to the full scale infiltration BMP.
Refer to the Department of Ecology’s SWMMWW for details on how to conduct this
test.
If this test is conducted, it is important to get the information needed to determine the
following:
o Amount of soil layering present,
o Soil characteristics beside and below the PIT (locate PIT close to test hole),
o The depth to the water table or aquiclude, and
o Local ground water measurements (i.e., within 5 ft of the edge of the PIT) that can
be used to determine the hydraulic gradient for the test.
PIT geometry should also be recorded. Due to the geotechnical interpretation needed, the
HQ Geotechnical Office should be contacted for assistance in running and interpreting
the PIT.
4D-4.4 Units Conversions for Ksat

Typical practice is to use metric units (i.e., cm/s) for Ksat as well as for soil particle diameter.
Furthermore, Equation 4D-3, and other equations developed in Allen (2017), provide Ksat values
in cm/s. However, soil layer depths are typically provided in ft, and hydraulic gradient equations
provided in Section 4D-5 are not in consistent units. It is therefore very important that the
correct units and unit conversions are used, as unit conversion can be a significant source of
calculation error. This units issue also applies to the other approaches that can be used to
determine Ksat. Therefore, use the following equations to convert Ksat from metric to English
units:
Ksat (ft/day) = Ksat (cm/s) x 2,834.65 (4D-8a)
Ksat (in./hr) = Ksat (cm/s) x 1,417.32 (4D-8b)

April 2019
4D-4.5 Determination of Ksat for Layered Soils

For infiltration pond (including bioinfiltration), infiltration trench, infiltration vault, the
underlying soils for CAVFS, natural dispersion, and engineered dispersion, once the saturated
hydraulic conductivity for each layer has been identified, determine the effective average
saturated hydraulic conductivity below the BMP. Saturated hydraulic conductivity estimates
from different layers can be combined for these BMPs using the harmonic mean:
𝑑𝑑
𝐾𝐾𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 (4D-9)
∑
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠−𝑖𝑖
where: Kequiv = the average saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/day)

d = the total depth of the soil column in feet
di = the thickness of layer “n” in the soil column (feet)
Ksat-i = the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer “i” in the
soil column (ft/day)
For dry wells, the geometric mean is used to determine Kequiv (Massmann 2004). In this case,
Kequiv is termed Kgeometric and is determined as follows:
K geometric = e Yaverage
(4D-10)
where: Kgeometric = the average saturated hydraulic conductivity in ft/min
Yaverage = the average of the natural logarithms of the hydraulic
conductivity values:
1 1 (4D-11)
∑ Yi = ∑ ln( K i )
Yaverage =
n n
where: Ki = the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil layer i in ft/min
Yi = the natural logarithms of the saturated hydraulic conductivity
values
The depth of the soil column, d, typically would include all layers between the final infiltration
BMP bottom elevation and the water table or low permeability layer (i.e., aquiclude). However,
for sites with very deep water tables (>100 feet) where groundwater mounding to the base of the
BMP is not likely to occur and no aquiclude, it is recommended that the total depth of the soil
column in Equation 4D-9 be limited to approximately 20 times the depth of BMP. If the depth to
the water table is greater than 50 ft, especially in drier climates such as occurs in eastern
Washington, the effect of soils deeper than 50 ft on the infiltration rate may be minimal due to the
low risk of significant groundwater mounding below the infiltration BMP. These recommended
depths of consideration will ensure the most important and relevant layers are included in the
saturated hydraulic conductivity calculations. Deep layers that are not likely to affect the
infiltration rate at the BMP bottom should not be included in Equation 4D-9.
Regarding aquicludes, for the purpose of determining Kequiv (or Kgeometric), a layer that has a Ksat
value that is less than 10% of the Kequiv value for the layers above the low permeability layer
should be considered to be an aquiclude and therefore not be included in the calculation of Kequiv
(or Kgeometric) for the BMP design. Examples of aquicludes include clay, glacial till, or bedrock.

April 2019
Equation 4D-9 may overestimate the effective saturated hydraulic conductivity value at sites with
low-conductivity layers immediately beneath the infiltration BMP. For sites where the lowest
conductivity layer is within 5 feet of the base of the BMP, it is suggested that this lowest saturated
hydraulic conductivity value be used as the equivalent saturated hydraulic conductivity rather
than the value from Equation 4D-9 or 4D-10. The harmonic mean given by equations 4D-9 and
4D-10 is the appropriate effective saturated hydraulic conductivity for flow that is perpendicular
to stratigraphic layers and will produce conservative results when flow has a significant horizontal
component (such as could occur with groundwater mounding).
If the licensed professional conducting the investigation determines that deeper layers will
influence the rate of infiltration for the facility, consider soil layers at greater depths when
assessing the site’s saturated hydraulic conductivity characteristics. Massmann (2003a) indicates
that where the water table is deep, soil or rock strata up to 100 feet below an infiltration facility
can influence the rate of infiltration depending on the type and size of the infiltration BMP. Note
that you need to consider only the layers near and above the water table or low-permeability
zone, as the layers below the groundwater table or low-permeability zone do not significantly
influence the rate of infiltration.
4D-5 Determination of Hydraulic Gradient Applicable to BMP

The hydraulic gradient applicable to the infiltration BMP will depend on the soil stratigraphy and
properties, the type of BMP, depth of temporarily stored water in the BMP, and the BMP
geometry. The following hydraulic gradient equations are applicable to use with a single-event
hydrograph or continuous hydrograph.
For infiltration ponds, calculate the steady state hydraulic gradient as follows (Massmann
2003a):
Dwt + D pond (4D-12)

gradient = i ≈ 0.1
CFsize
138.62( K equiv )
where: i = steady state hydraulic gradient
Dwt = the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the
water table or low permeability layer (i.e., aquiclude) in
feet
Kequiv = the harmonic mean (Eq. 4D-9) of the saturated hydraulic
conductivity in feet/day (note: 1.0 in./hr = 2 ft/day)
Dpond = the depth of water in the facility in feet
CFsize = the correction for pond size
This equation should only be used for soil Kequiv values between 3 ft/day and 300 ft/day (fine to
coarse sands with limited fines content), based on the regressions conducted by Massmann
(2003a). For soils outside this range, i should be determined through groundwater modelling
(see Section 4D-6).

April 2019
The correction factor CFsize was developed for ponds with bottom areas between 0.6 and 6 acres
in size. For small ponds (ponds with area equal to 2/3 acre or less), the correction factor is equal
to 1.0. For large ponds (ponds with area equal to 6 acres), the correction factor is 0.2, as shown
in Equation 4D-13.
CFsize = 0.73( Apond ) −0.76 (4D-13)
where: Apond = the area of pond bottom in acres

(note: 1.0 ft2 = 0.000023 acres)
This equation will generally result in a calculated gradient of less than 1.0 for moderate-
to-shallow groundwater depths (or to a low-permeability layer) below the facility and
conservatively accounts for the development of a groundwater mound. A more detailed
groundwater mounding analysis, using a program such as MODFLOW, will usually result in a
gradient that is equal to or greater than the gradient calculated using Equation 4D-12. If the
calculated gradient is greater than 1.0, the water table is considered to be deep and a maximum
gradient of 1.0 shall be used.
Typically, a depth to groundwater of 100 feet or more is required to obtain a gradient of 1.0 or
more using this equation. Since the gradient is a function of depth of water in the facility, the
gradient will vary as the pond fills during the season. Therefore, calculate the gradient as part of
the stage-discharge calculation used in MGSFlood for the continuous hydrograph method. For
designs using the single-event hydrograph, it is sufficiently accurate to calculate the hydraulic
gradient based on one-half the maximum depth of water in the pond.
For infiltration trenches, calculate the steady state hydraulic gradient as follows (Massmann
2003a):
Dwt + Dtrench (4D-14)
gradient = it ≈ 0.05
78( K equiv )
where: it = steady state hydraulic gradient in the trench

Dwt = the depth from the base of the infiltration facility to the
water table or low permeability layer (i.e., aquiclude) in feet
Kequiv = the harmonic mean (Eq. 4D-9) of the saturated hydraulic
conductivity, in feet/day (note: 1.0 in./hr = 2 ft/day)
Dtrench = the depth of water in the trench, in feet
As is true of Equation 4D-12, Equation 4D-14 is applicable to conditions where a full
groundwater mound develops, and for soils in which Kequiv is between 3 ft/day and 300 ft/day
(fine to coarse sands with limited fines content), based on the regressions conducted by
Massmann (2003a).
If the calculated gradient is greater than 1.0, the water table is considered to be deep and a
maximum gradient of 1.0 shall be used. It is sufficiently accurate to calculate the hydraulic
gradient assuming that Dtrench is equal to one-half the trench depth.

April 2019
For the underlying soils of a CAVFS, use Equation 4D-12 (pond gradient equation) to
determine the hydraulic gradient if the CAVFS length is less than 30 times the width. If the
CAVFS length is greater than or equal to 30 times the width, use Equation 4D-14 (trench
gradient equation) to determine the hydraulic gradient for the underlying soils of a CAVFS.
Determination of the depth to the water table or low permeability layer is as shown in Figure 4D-
5. A BMP size correction factor is not needed for CAVFS design and therefore CFsize = 1.0 for
CAVFS design.
For natural and engineered dispersion, use the same approach as for a CAVFS for western
Washington sites, and any site where the depth to the water table or low permeability layer (i.e.,
aquiclude) below the natural dispersion area is less than 20 ft. For eastern Washington sites, a
hydraulic gradient of 1.0 can typically be used (therefore, the infiltration rate is equal to Ksat).
For drywells, an empirical approach in which the hydraulic gradient is not specifically
calculated is used to design the well. See equations E-31 and E-32 in IN.05.
CAVFS PLACED IN A NEW FILL SECTION
CAVFS Width (w)
Elevation of bottom of
CAVFS at 2/3 the width
measured from the top**
Original Ground Depth to

Groundwater
Elevation
Groundwater
Monitoring Well
or piezometer
Figure 4D-5 Determination of depth to groundwater or low permeability layer, Dwt, for a CAVFS.
4D-6 Determination of Design Infiltration Rate for BMP

Using Equation 4D-1 (Darcy’s Law), calculate the infiltration rate for the infiltration BMP.
Then adjust the infiltration rate to account for any applicable long-term effects such as siltation
and biofouling.
The reduction factors provided in Table 4D-2 are used to account for reductions in the
infiltration rate resulting from long-term siltation and biofouling, taking into consideration the
degree of long-term maintenance and performance monitoring anticipated; the degree of influent
control (such as presettling ponds or biofiltration swales); and the potential for (among others)

April 2019
siltation, litterfall, or moss buildup based on the surrounding environment. It should be assumed
that an average-to-high degree of maintenance will be performed on these facilities. Consider a
low degree of maintenance only when there is no other option (such as with access problems).
Multiply the infiltration rates estimated above by the reduction factors summarized in Table 4D-
2. Applying the reduction factors in Table 4D-2 are done by the PEO and not the Region
Materials Engineer or HQ Geotechnical Office.
Table 4D-2 Infiltration rate reduction factors to account for biofouling and siltation effects
for ponds (Massmann, 2003a).
Degree of Long-Term Infiltration Rate

Potential for
Maintenance/Performance Reduction Factor,
Biofouling
Monitoring CFsilt/bio
Low Average to High 0.9
Low Low 0.6
High Average to High 0.5
High Low 0.2
The values in this table assume that final excavation of the facility to the finished grade is
deferred until all disturbed areas in the up-gradient drainage area have been stabilized or
protected (for example, construction runoff is not allowed into the facility after final excavation
of the facility) as required in Section 5-4.2.1.
An example of a situation with a high potential for biofouling would be a pond located in a shady
area where moss and litter fall from adjacent vegetation can build up on the pond bottom and
sides, the upgradient drainage area will remain in a long-term disturbed condition, and no
pretreatment (such as presettling ponds or biofiltration swales) is provided. Situations with a low
degree of long-term maintenance include locations where access to the facility for maintenance
is very difficult or limited or where there is minimal control of the party responsible for
enforcing the required maintenance. Consider a low degree of maintenance only when there is no
other option.
The values in Table 4D-2 should also be considered for infiltration trenches, though it is likely
that those values will be conservative for infiltration trenches (Massmann 2003a). No correction
factors for biofouling or siltation are needed for underlying soils of CAVFS since those soils are
under the CAVFS layer. The same is true for natural and engineered dispersion BMPs.
For drywells, the regression equations provided in Chapter 5, equations E-31 and E-32, will
likely produce conservative results if pretreatment is provided. If pretreatment to prevent silt
laden water from interring the drywell cannot be provided, a CFsilt/bio reduction factor of 0.5 or
less should be applied to the infiltration rate calculated using equations E-31 or E-32 (see IN.05).
For infiltration ponds, this long-term infiltration rate needs to be adjusted for the effect of pond
aspect ratio by multiplying the infiltration rate by the aspect ratio correction factor CFaspect. This
correction factor accounts for the proportionately increasing effect of lateral flow, in addition to
vertical flow, on the rate of infiltration when ponds are more elongated. CFaspect is determined as
shown in Equation 4D-15 below. In no case shall CFaspect be greater than 1.4.

April 2019
CFaspect = 0.02Ar + 0.98 (4D-15)

where: CFaspect = the aspect ratio correction factor
Ar = the aspect ratio for the pond (length/width)
The final infiltration rate will therefore be as follows:
f = (Kequiv )(i)( CFaspect)(CFsilt/bio) (4D-16)
The infiltration rate calculated based on Equation 4D-16 is a long-term design rate. Given that
the calculation of the hydraulic gradient and the values for CFsilt/bio are a lower bound values (i.e.,
conservative), resulting in effectively having built in safety factors, no additional reduction factor
or factor of safety is needed to account for uncertainties (Massmann 2003b), except possibly in
exceptional circumstances.
Use of a groundwater flow simulation model. For this approach, MODFLOW should be used,
developed using a trial geometry, continuous hydrograph data, soil stratigraphy, groundwater
data, saturated hydraulic conductivity data, and reduction in saturated hydraulic conductivity due
to siltation or biofouling on the surface of the facility. Use of this approach will likely be
beneficial to determine a more accurate hydraulic gradient than can be obtained with equations
4D-12 and 4D-14, as these two equations can be overly conservative. If a PIT is conducted at the
site, a MODFLOW analysis must be conducted to help assess the difference in hydraulic
gradient for the PIT versus that for the infiltration BMP. This type of analysis requires detailed
geotechnical input and analysis experience. Therefore, the HQ Geotechnical Office must be
contacted to conduct the analysis. If a geotechnical consultant (or other consultant in a related
field who has significant experience conducting MODFLOW analyses) is already working on the
project, that consultant can do the work, but the HQ Geotechnical Office must be given the
opportunity to work with the consultant and review the work. If this approach is used, a factor of
safety will likely be needed to account for uncertainties in the input parameters and model, since
lower bound, conservative values for the hydraulic gradient, for example, will not be used. The
factor of safety needed, in this case, will depend on site variability, how Ksat is determined, and
what simplifying assumptions are used to develop the infiltration model. Use of this approach
for infiltration design, including what safety factor to use for the design, requires the approval of
the HQ Hydraulics Section and the HQ Geotechnical Office.
4D-7 Sizing the Infiltration Facility

An overview of the design procedure is provided in Figures 4D-3 and 4D-4. The focus of these
design procedures is to size the facility. For other geotechnical aspects of the facility design,
including geotechnical stability of the facility and constructability requirements, see Chapter 5
and the Design Manual. A multidisciplinary approach is required to design infiltration facilities,
as described in Chapter 2.
If the infiltration facility is located in eastern Washington, the PEO will use the computer
program StormShed3G and the Infiltration Calculation Spreadsheet at:
to determine the necessary applicable correction factors CFsize, CFaspect and CFsilt/bio. If the
infiltration facility is located in western Washington, the PEO will use MGSFlood. All of the
correction factors are toggles in MGSFlood so no external calculations are necessary. The PEO

April 2019
shall verify the Site Suitability Criteria in Section 4-5.1 have been met for the infiltration BMP
design. This includes the meeting the maximum draw down times, maximum infiltration rates,
and minimum depths to the seasonal high groundwater table. Examples on how to do the
stormwater modeling can be found at: www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/hydraulics/training.htm.
Once the facility is constructed, maintain and monitor the facility for performance in accordance
with the Maintenance Manual.
4D-8 Determining Infiltration Rates for Soil Amendment

BMPs
It is necessary to establish the final infiltration rate of an amended soil or engineered soil mix
when used as a BMP design component to achieve treatment or flow control requirements. These
guidelines are applicable to CAVFS, engineered dispersion, bioinfiltration ponds, and infiltration
ponds using topsoil or other engineered lining. The final infiltration rate should be the lower of
the following two rates: (1) the final rate of the amended soil or engineered soil mix (see Figure
4D-6), OR (2) the final infiltration rate of the underlying soil profile. Determine the underlying
native soil final infiltration rate as described in Section 4D-6.
Also, refer to Table 4-1 for flow control modeling guidelines to determine flow reduction
benefits using MGSFlood.
Proper soil specification, preparation, and installation are the most critical factors for LID BMP
performance. Soil specifications can vary according to the design objectives and the in situ soil.
For more information, see Section 5-4.3.2.

April 2019
Use ASTM D2434 Standard Test Method for

Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head) with a
compaction rate of 80-85% using ASTM D1557
Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil using Modified Method Effort.
Contributing area is < 5,000 sq. ft. of Contributing area is ≥ 5,000 sq. ft. of
pollution-generating impervious surface pollution-generating impervious surface
area; and < 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious area; area; or ≥ 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious area;
and is < ¾ acre conversion from native or is ≥ ¾ acre conversion from native
vegetation to lawn or landscaping. vegetation to lawn or landscaping.
Use 2 as the infiltration reduction factor to Use 4 as the infiltration reduction factor to
estimate final infiltration rate. estimate final infiltration rate.
Use the lower value of the two:

(1) Final infiltration rate of the CAVFS or engineered soil mix
OR
(2) Final infiltration rate of the soil under the CAVFS or under the
engineered soil mix
Figure 4D-6 Determining infiltration rate of soil amendments CAVFS, engineered dispersion,
bioinfiltration ponds, and infiltration ponds using topsoil or other engineered
lining.

April 2019
4D-9 References
AASHTO, 2014, Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head),
Rigid Wall, T215-14, Washington DC, 15 pp.
AASHTO, 2015, Standard Method of Test Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg
(10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop, T180-15, AASHTO, Washington DC, 14
pp.
AASHTO, 2017, Standard Test Method for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg
(5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12 in.) Drop, T99-17, Washington DC, 13 pp.

Conductivity Estimation for Uncompacted and Compacted Soils, WSDOT Research Report WA-
RD 872-1, 161 pp.
Conductivity Estimation for Natural Low Plasticity Silts, WSDOT Research Report WA-RD
872-2, _____ pp.
ASTM, 2009, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit Weight) of
Soil Specimens, D7263-09, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 7 pp.
ASTM, 2014, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, C-136-
06, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 5 pp.
ASTM, 2014, Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Solids by Water Pycnometer, D-854-
14, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 8 pp.
ASTM, 2015, Standard Test Method for (Field Procedure) for Instantaneous Change in head
(Slug) Tests for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers, D4044-15, ASTM, West
Conshohocken PA, 4 pp.
ASTM, 2016, Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a
Flexible Wall Permeameter, Method C – Falling Head, Rising Tailwater, D5084-16a,
ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 24 pp.
ASTM, 2017, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained
Soils Using Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis, D7928-17, ASTM, West
Conshohocken PA, 25 pp.
ASTM, 2017, Standard Guide for Selection of Aquifer Test Method in Determining Hydraulic
Properties by Well Techniques, D4043-17, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 6 pp.
ASTM, 2017, Standard Test Method (Analytical Procedure) for Determining Transmissivity of
Nonleaky Confined Aquifers by Overdamped Well Response to Instantaneous Change in
Head (Slug Tests), D4104-17, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 5 pp.
ASTM, 2018, Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of Soils using Double-Ring
Infiltrometer, D3385-18, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 8 pp.

April 2019
Chapuis, R. P., 2012, “Predicting the Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Soils: A Review,”
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 71, pp. 401-434, DOI: 10.1007/s10064-012-0418-7.
Chin, D.A., 2000, Water Resources Engineering, Prentice Hall.

Loehr, J.E., Lutteneger, A., Rosenblad, B., and Boeckmann, A., 2016, Geotechnical Site
Characterization (GEC-5), Report No. FHWA NHI-16-072, Washington DC, 639 pp.
Massmann, J. W., 2003a, Implementation of Infiltration Ponds Research, WA-RD 578.1, 218 pp.
Massmann, J. W., 2003b, A Design Manual for Sizing Infiltration Ponds, WA-RD 578.2, 72 pp.
Massmann, J. W., 2004, An Approach for Estimating Infiltration Rates for Stormwater
Infiltration Dry Wells, WA-RD 589.1, 68 pp.
Mayne, P. W., Christopher, B.R., and DeJong, J., 2002, Subsurface Investigations – Geotechnical
Site Characterization, Publication No. FHWA NHI-01-031, National Highway Institute,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 300 pp.
Washington State Dept. of Ecology (WSDOE), 2014, Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington, Publication Number 14-10-055, 1192 pp. (specifically Vol. III,
Chapter 3).
WSDOT, 2015, WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, M 46-03, 868 pp.
WSDOT, 2016, “Determination of the % Compaction for Embankment & Untreated Surfacing
Materials Using the Nuclear Moisture-Density Gauge,” SOP 615, WSDOT Materials
Manual, M46-01, 6 pp.

April 2019
CHAPTER 5
Stormwater Best Management Practices

Chapter 5 Contents
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 5-iii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 5-iv
5-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5-2 Types and Functions of Permanent Stormwater BMPs ........................................................... 5-2
5-2.1 BMPs for Stormwater Source Control......................................................................... 5-2
5-2.2 BMPs for Stormwater Runoff Treatment .................................................................... 5-3
5-2.2.1 Infiltration BMPs ........................................................................................ 5-3
5-2.2.2 Dispersion BMPs ........................................................................................ 5-4
5-2.2.3 Biofiltration BMPs ...................................................................................... 5-5
5-2.2.4 Wetpool BMPs ........................................................................................... 5-6
5-2.2.5 Oil Control BMPs ........................................................................................ 5-7
5-2.2.6 Phosphorous Control BMPs ........................................................................ 5-7
5-2.3 BMPs for Stormwater Flow Control ............................................................................ 5-8
5-2.3.1 Infiltration BMPs ........................................................................................ 5-8
5-2.3.2 Dispersion BMPs ........................................................................................ 5-9
5-2.3.3 Detention BMPs ......................................................................................... 5-9
5-3 BMP Selection Process .......................................................................................................... 5-9
5-3.1 Part I: Determine the Applicable Minimum Requirements and Project-Specific
Considerations ......................................................................................................... 5-10
5-3.2 Part II: Select Source Control BMPs .......................................................................... 5-10
5-3.3 Part III: Determine LID Feasibility and Select LID BMPs ............................................. 5-11
5-3.4 Part IV: Select Flow Control BMPs ............................................................................ 5-13
5-3.5 Part V: Select Runoff Treatment BMPs ..................................................................... 5-15
5-3.5.1 LID BMP Selection for Site Development .................................................. 5-17
5-3.6 Seeking Authorization for Alternative BMP Options ................................................. 5-19
5-3.6.1 Category 1: Ecology-Approved BMPs Not in the HRM ............................... 5-19
5-3.6.2 Category 2: Emerging Technologies .......................................................... 5-19
5-3.6.3 Category 3: The Demonstrative Approach ................................................ 5-23
5-3.7 BMP Validation and Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................... 5-24
5-3.7.1 General Maintenance Requirements ........................................................ 5-25
5-4 BMP Design Criteria............................................................................................................. 5-30
5-4.1 Runoff Treatment Methods ..................................................................................... 5-30
5-4.1.1 Infiltration BMPs ...................................................................................... 5-30
5-4.1.2 Dispersion BMPs ...................................................................................... 5-30
5-4.1.3 Biofiltration BMPs .................................................................................... 5-31
RT.02 – Vegetated Filter Strip ................................................................... 5-31
RT.04 – Biofiltration Swale........................................................................ 5-44
RT.05 – Wet Biofiltration Swale ................................................................ 5-56

April 2019
Contents Chapter 5
RT.06 – Continuous Inflow Biofiltration Swale .......................................... 5-61

RT.07 – Media Filter Drain ........................................................................ 5-67
RT.08 – Bioretention Area ........................................................................ 5-86
5-4.1.4 Wetpool BMPs ......................................................................................... 5-88
RT.12 – Wet Pond..................................................................................... 5-88
CO.01 – Combined Wet/Detention Pond .................................................. 5-99
RT.13 – Constructed Stormwater Treatment Wetland ............................ 5-105
CO.02 – Combined Stormwater Treatment Wetland/Detention Pond ..... 5-117
5-4.1.5 Oil Control BMPs .................................................................................... 5-121
RT.22 – Oil Containment Boom............................................................... 5-121
5-4.2 Flow Control Methods ........................................................................................... 5-124
5-4.2.1
Infiltration BMPs .................................................................................... 5-124
IN.01 – Bioinfiltration Pond (eastern Washington only) .......................... 5-124
IN.02 – Infiltration Pond ......................................................................... 5-129
IN.03 – Infiltration Trench ...................................................................... 5-135
IN.04 – Infiltration Vault ......................................................................... 5-146
IN.05 – Drywell ....................................................................................... 5-147
IN.06 – Permeable Pavement Surfaces ................................................... 5-152
5-4.2.2 Dispersion BMPs .................................................................................... 5-153
FC.01 – Natural Dispersion ..................................................................... 5-153
FC.02 – Engineered Dispersion ............................................................... 5-165
5-4.2.3 Detention BMPs ..................................................................................... 5-171
FC.03 – Detention Pond .......................................................................... 5-171
5-4.3 Stormwater Facility Components ........................................................................... 5-185
5-4.3.1 Pretreatment ......................................................................................... 5-185
RT.24 – Presettling Basin ........................................................................ 5-185
5-4.3.2 Soil Amendments ................................................................................... 5-190
5-4.3.3 Facility Liners ......................................................................................... 5-196
5-4.3.4 Flow Splitters ......................................................................................... 5-199
5-4.3.5 Flow Spreading Options.......................................................................... 5-203
5-4.3.6 Pipe Outlets ........................................................................................... 5-211
5-5 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................ 5-211
5-5.1 Typical BMP Maintenance Standards ..................................................................... 5-211
5-5.2 Natural and Landscaped Areas Designated as Stormwater Management Facilities . 5-212
5-5.2.1 Documenting and Preserving Intended Functions ................................... 5-212
5-5.2.2 Sensitive Area Mapping .......................................................................... 5-212
5-5.3 Stormwater BMP Signing Requirements................................................................. 5-212
5-6 References ........................................................................................................................ 5-225

April 2019
Chapter 5 Contents
List of Tables
Table 5-1 Relative rankings of cost elements and effective life of BMP options. ........................... 5-24
Table 5-2 Surface roughness/Manning’s n for vegetated filter strip design calculations................ 5-37
Table 5-3 Flow resistance coefficient in basic, wet, and continuous inflow biofiltration swales. ... 5-48
Table 5-4 Biofiltration swale sizing criteria. .................................................................................. 5-49
Table 5-5 Recommended plants for wet biofiltration swales in western Washington. .................. 5-60
Table 5-6 Western Washington design widths for media filter drains (Type 1 and Type 3). ........... 5-81
Table 5-7 Media filter drain mix. .................................................................................................. 5-85
Table 5-8 Plants and water depths for western Washington[2] constructed stormwater treatment
wetlands..................................................................................................................... 5-111
Table 5-9 Lining types recommended for runoff treatment facilities. ......................................... 5-197
Table 5-10 Maintenance standards for detention ponds. ............................................................. 5-213
Table 5-11 Maintenance standards for bioinfiltration ponds/infiltration trenches/basins............. 5-215
Table 5-12 Maintenance standards for closed treatment systems (tanks/vaults).......................... 5-216
Table 5-13 Maintenance standards for control structure/flow restrictor. ..................................... 5-217
Table 5-14 Maintenance standards for catch basins. .................................................................... 5-218
Table 5-15 Maintenance standards for debris barriers (such as trash racks). ................................ 5-219
Table 5-16 Maintenance standards for energy dissipaters............................................................ 5-220
Table 5-17 Maintenance standards for biofiltration swale............................................................ 5-221
Table 5-18 Maintenance standards for vegetated filter strip. ....................................................... 5-222
Table 5-19 Maintenance standards for media filter drain. ............................................................ 5-222
Table 5-20 Maintenance standards for permeable pavement. ..................................................... 5-223
Table 5-21 Maintenance standards for dispersion areas (natural and engineered). ...................... 5-223
Table 5-22 Maintenance standards for wet ponds. ...................................................................... 5-224
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 5-iii

April 2019
Contents Chapter 5
List of Figures
Figure 5-1 Low-impact development BMP selection flow chart. .................................................... 5-12
Figure 5-2 Flow control BMP selection flow chart. ......................................................................... 5-14
Figure 5-3 Runoff treatment BMP selection flow chart. ................................................................. 5-16
Figure 5-4 Site development LID BMP selection flow chart. ........................................................... 5-18
Figure 5-5 Process for using BMPs not in the HRM. . ..................................................................... 5-21
Figure 5-6 Emerging technology approval process: Category 2 pathway. ....................................... 5-22
Figure 5-7 Typical vegetated filter strip. ........................................................................................ 5-33
Figure 5-8 CAVFS detail in MGSFlood. ........................................................................................... 5-38
Figure 5-9 Narrow area vegetated filter strip design graph. ........................................................... 5-43
Figure 5-10 Biofiltration swale: Plan view. ....................................................................................... 5-50
Figure 5-11 Biofiltration swale: Cross section. ................................................................................. 5-51
Figure 5-12 Biofiltration swale: Flow spreader and concrete sump. ................................................. 5-51
Figure 5-13 Biofiltration swale: Concrete flow spreader details. ...................................................... 5-52
Figure 5-14 Biofiltration swale: Concrete flow spreader dimensions................................................ 5-52
Figure 5-15 Biofiltration swale: Divider splice details. ...................................................................... 5-53
Figure 5-16 Biofiltration swale: Divider details. ............................................................................... 5-53
Figure 5-17 Biofiltration swale: Divider staking details..................................................................... 5-53
Figure 5-18 Geometric elements of common cross sections. ........................................................... 5-54
Figure 5-19 Wet biofiltration swale: Cross section. .......................................................................... 5-59
Figure 5-20 Continuous inflow biofiltration swale: Plan view. .......................................................... 5-63
Figure 5-21 Continuous inflow biofiltration swale: Plan view. .......................................................... 5-64
Figure 5-22 Basic biofiltration swale: Plan view. .............................................................................. 5-65
Figure 5-23 Media filter drain Type 1: Side slope application with underdrain. ................................ 5-69
Figure 5-24 Dual media filter drain Type 2: Median application. ...................................................... 5-70
Figure 5-25 Media filter drain Type 3: Side slope application without underdrain............................ 5-71
Figure 5-26 Media filter drain Type 4: End-of-pipe application with underdrain. ............................. 5-72
Figure 5-27 Media filter drain Type 5: End-of-pipe application without underdrain. ........................ 5-73
Figure 5-28 Media filter drain Type 6: End-of-pipe application with underdrain. ............................. 5-74
Figure 5-29 Media filter drain Type 7: End-of-pipe application without underdrain. ........................ 5-75
Figure 5-30 Media filter drain underdrain installation. .................................................................... 5-83
Page 5-iv WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Chapter 5 Contents
Figure 5-31 Wet pond: Plan view..................................................................................................... 5-90

Figure 5-32 Wet pond: Cross section. .............................................................................................. 5-91
Figure 5-33 Combined wet/detention pond: Plan view. ................................................................. 5-101
Figure 5-34 Combined wet/detention pond: Cross sections........................................................... 5-102
Figure 5-35 Alternative configurations of wet/detention pond areas............................................. 5-104
Figure 5-36 Constructed stormwater treatment wetland: Plan/Section view ................................. 5-109
Figure 5-37 Constructed stormwater treatment wetland outlet structure. .................................... 5-110
Figure 5-38 Combined stormwater treatment wetland/detention pond. ....................................... 5-119
Figure 5-39 Oil containment boom. ............................................................................................... 5-123
Figure 5-40 Bioinfiltration pond. ................................................................................................... 5-127
Figure 5-41 Infiltration pond. ........................................................................................................ 5-131
Figure 5-42 Parking lot perimeter trench design. ........................................................................... 5-137
Figure 5-43 Infiltration trench system. .......................................................................................... 5-138
Figure 5-44 Median strip trench design. ........................................................................................ 5-139
Figure 5-45 Oversize pipe trench design. ....................................................................................... 5-140
Figure 5-46 Underground trench and oil/grit chamber. ................................................................. 5-141
Figure 5-47 Observation well detail. .............................................................................................. 5-144
Figure 5-48a Natural or engineered dispersion without a gravel level spreader............................... 5-161
Figure 5-50b Natural or engineered dispersion with a gravel level spreader. ................................... 5-161
Figure 5-49 Channelized flow to natural or engineered dispersion area......................................... 5-170
Figure 5-50 Detention pond. ......................................................................................................... 5-173
Figure 5-51 Detention pond: Cross sections. ................................................................................. 5-174
Figure 5-52 Detention pond: Cross sections. ................................................................................. 5-175
Figure 5-53 Overflow structure with debris cage. .......................................................................... 5-176
Figure 5-54 Overflow structure sizing. ........................................................................................... 5-177
Figure 5-55 Typical presettling basin. ............................................................................................ 5-187
Figure 5-56 Presettling basin: Alternate sections. .......................................................................... 5-188
Figure 5-57 Soil amendments for vegetation. ................................................................................ 5-194
Figure 5-58 Flow splitter: Option A. ............................................................................................... 5-201
Figure 5-59 Flow splitter: Option B. ............................................................................................... 5-202
Figure 5-60 Flow spreader Option A: Anchor plate. ....................................................................... 5-205
Figure 5-61 Flow spreader Option C: Notched curb spreader. ....................................................... 5-206
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 5-v

April 2019
Contents Chapter 5
Figure 5-62 Flow spreader Option D: Through-curb port. .............................................................. 5-207

Figure 5-63 Slotted pipe details. .................................................................................................... 5-208
Figure 5-64 Slotted pipe mounding. .............................................................................................. 5-209
Figure 5-65 Flow dispersal trench.................................................................................................. 5-210
Figure 5-66 Alternative flow dispersal trench. ............................................................................... 5-211
Page 5-vi WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Chapter 5 Stormwater Best Management Practices
5-1 Introduction
The intent of this chapter is to provide designers of Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) facilities with specific guidelines and criteria on the proper selection,
design, and application of stormwater management techniques. A selection process is
presented, along with design considerations for each best management practice (BMP). This
chapter also presents ways to combine or enhance the different types of facilities to maximize
their efficiency or to better fit within the project site.
Stormwater BMPs are the physical, structural, and managerial practices that, when used singly
or in combination, prevent or reduce the detrimental impacts of stormwater, such as the
pollution of water, degradation of channels, damage to structures, and flooding. These BMPs
can be further characterized as performing the following three essential, yet distinct, functions:
 Source control: Prevents or reduces the introduction of pollutants to stormwater.
 Flow control: Offsets and attenuates the increased rate of discharge caused by
impervious surfaces.
 Runoff treatment: Intercepts and reduces the physical, chemical, and biological
pollutant loads generated primarily from highway use.
The typical pollutants found in highway runoff that the PEO must consider for treatment
include total suspended solids (TSS) and sediments; dissolved metals (such as cadmium, copper,
zinc, and lead); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); oil and grease; road salts and deicing
agents; temperature; and, in some watersheds, nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus).
The BMPs in this manual have been developed using the best available science, and they have
been approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The required
application of these BMPs is based on the state-adopted standard of using all known, available,
and reasonable technologies (AKART) and methods of prevention, control, and treatment.
When used and maintained in conjunction with operational source controls, BMPs can provide
a long-term, effective means of preventing violations of water quality standards. However, it
is essential that the PEO take the utmost care in the proper selection and site application of the
various BMPs for every project to ensure the PEO obtains the maximum benefit.
Many of the BMPs covered in this manual include general recommendations regarding the
conditions under which a practice applies, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of that
practice. However, it is strongly recommended that the PEO takes an iterative approach to
selecting BMPs based on site-specific criteria. This entails being flexible and somewhat creative
when determining a final stormwater management solution that works best in each situation. It
also requires that the PEO wholly integrates stormwater management considerations
throughout the entire project development decision-making process (see Chapter 2 for further
guidelines).

April 2019
Stormwater Best Management Practices Chapter 5
Design guidelines for most of the commonly used permanent BMPs for highway applications
can be found in Section 5.4. Guidelines for the design of temporary BMPs used during
construction are given in the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Manual (TESCM). For
guidelines and criteria on the design of source control BMPs, refer to Volume IV of Ecology’s
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Chapter 8 of
the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW). For guidelines
and criteria on the design and application of temporary spill prevention and containment
BMPs during construction, see the TESCM.
5-2 Types and Functions of Permanent Stormwater BMPs

This section of the manual provides a general overview of the currently available BMPs and the
circumstances under which they are typically used. Specific design criteria for each BMP can be
found in Section 5-4.
Permanent stormwater BMPs are management features that are designed into a project and
remain in place throughout the service life of the project. The PEO must make sure that the
BMPs will provide the desired results and can be maintained within the guidelines established
in Section 5-5. Design the project to take advantage of the topography, soils, waterways,
and natural vegetation at the site. At each stage of the design, evaluate the potential for
stormwater degradation and choose the design with the least impact. Plan the project
so construction activities will not generate excessive sediment and runoff leaving the site.
Finally, design the project so that stormwater facilities are reasonably accessible to perform
the required maintenance.
5-2.1 BMPs for Stormwater Source Control

The first consideration in design should be source control. Design stormwater source controls
to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater by eliminating the source of pollution or by
preventing the contact of pollutants with rainfall and runoff. Apply source control BMPs to the
entire project, both existing and new project areas. According to Volume IV, Chapter 2, of the
SWMMWW and Chapter 8 of the SWMMEW, source control BMPs apply to the following
WSDOT activities or settings:
 Deicing and anti-icing for streets and highways
 Dust control at disturbed land areas and unpaved roadways and parking lots
 Fueling at dedicated stations
 Illicit connections to storm drains (that is, unpermitted sanitary or process water
discharges to a storm drain rather than a sanitary sewer connection)
 Landscaping and lawn/vegetation management
 Maintenance and repair of vehicles and equipment
 Maintenance of roadside ditches
 Maintenance of stormwater drainage and treatment systems

April 2019
 Painting of buildings and structures (bridges and docks)

 Parking and storage of vehicles and equipment
 Railroad yards
 Spills of oil and hazardous substances
 Storage or transfer (outside) of solid raw materials, byproducts, or finished products
 Urban streets
 Washing and steam cleaning of vehicles, equipment, and building structures
Only a few permanent source control BMPs (such as street sweeping, deicing, and spill control)
can be regularly used for a roadway. Source control BMPs are used more commonly during
construction and for the permanent portion of nonroadway projects such as rest areas and park
and ride lots. The source control BMPs for use during construction are detailed in the TESCM.
Refer to Volume IV of the SWMMWW and Chapter 8 of the SWMMEW for guidelines on
selecting proper source control BMPs for permanent facilities. Contact the Environmental
Services Office, Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste, for further assistance when a project
involves the storage or transfer of hazardous materials or waste products.
5-2.2 BMPs for Stormwater Runoff Treatment

Runoff treatment BMPs designed to remove pollutants contained in runoff use a variety of
mechanisms, including sedimentation, filtration, plant uptake, ion exchange, adsorption,
precipitation, and bacterial decomposition.
Hydrologic criteria and analysis methods for sizing runoff treatment BMPs in western
Washington are discussed in Section 4-3. Hydrologic criteria and analysis methods for sizing
runoff treatment BMPs in eastern Washington are discussed in Section 4-4. The following
overview provides information on the most commonly used runoff treatment BMPs available
for highway application.
5-2.2.1 Infiltration BMPs

Infiltration BMPs for runoff treatment are discussed in Section 5-4.1.1 and include the
following:
 IN.01 – Bioinfiltration Pond
 IN.02 – Infiltration Pond
 IN.03 – Infiltration Trench
 IN.04 – Infiltration Vault (see Category 1 BMPs document)
 IN.05 – Drywell

April 2019
In addition to being one of the preferred methods for flow control, infiltration is a preferred
method for runoff treatment, offering the highest level of pollutant removal. Treatment is
achieved through settling, biological action, and filtration. One important advantage to using
infiltration is that it recharges the groundwater, thereby helping to maintain summertime base
flows of streams. Infiltration also produces a natural reduction in stream temperature, which is
an important factor in maintaining a healthy habitat for resident species and other in-stream
biota.
Infiltration facilities must be preceded by a presettling basin for removing most of the sediment
particles that would otherwise reduce the infiltrative capacity of the soil. Infiltration strategies
intended to meet runoff treatment goals may be challenging for many project locations in
western Washington due to the large space requirements and strict soil and water table
requirements (see Sections 5-4.1.1 and 5-4.2.1 for site restrictions). There are generally
more opportunities for the use of infiltration BMPs in eastern Washington.
5-2.2.2 Dispersion BMPs

Dispersion BMPs are discussed in Section 5-4.1.2 and include the following:
 FC.01 – Natural Dispersion
 FC.02 – Engineered Dispersion
Perhaps the single most promising and effective approach the PEO can use to mitigate the
effects of highway runoff in non-urbanized areas is to look for opportunities to use the existing
natural area capacity to remove pollutants. Natural dispersion requires that runoff cannot
become concentrated in any way as it flows into a preserved naturally vegetated area. The
preserved naturally vegetated area must have topographic, soil, and vegetation characteristics
that provide for the removal of pollutants. Pollutant removal typically occurs through a
combined process of vegetative filtration and shallow surface infiltration.
The most notable benefits associated with natural dispersion are that it maintains and
preserves the natural functions; reduces the possibility of further impacts to the adjacent
natural areas associated with the construction of physical treatment facilities; and can be
very cost-effective. In most cases, this method not only meets the requirements for runoff
treatment, but also provides flow attenuation and satisfies the low-impact development (LID)
requirements. If channelized drainage features are present and close to the runoff areas
requiring treatment, then other types of engineered solutions might be more appropriate.
Engineered dispersion techniques use the same removal processes as natural dispersion. For
engineered dispersion, a constructed conveyance system directs concentrated runoff to the
dispersion area (via storm sewer pipe, ditch, or other methods). The concentrated flow is
dispersed at the end of the conveyance system to mimic sheet flow conditions into the
dispersion area. Engineered dispersion techniques enhance the modified area with compost-
amended soils and additional vegetation. These upgrades help ensure the dispersion area has
the capacity and ability to infiltrate surface runoff.

April 2019
Like any other stormwater BMP, the PEO must follow preservation and maintenance protocols
when the PEO uses dispersion techniques. Because the terrain features used to provide
treatment are, for the most part, indistinguishable from other typical natural or landscaped
areas, it is essential that these areas be readily identifiable so they are not altered or destroyed
by general maintenance practices or future development. (See Section 5-5 for further criteria.)
5-2.2.3 Biofiltration BMPs

Biofiltration BMPs are discussed in Section 5-4.1.3 and include the following:
 RT.02 – Vegetated Filter Strip (basic, narrow area, and compost-amended or CAVFS)
 RT.04 – Biofiltration Swale (basic and compost-amended or CABS)
 RT.05 – Wet Biofiltration Swale
 RT.06 – Continuous Inflow Biofiltration Swale (and continuous inflow compost
amended bioswale or CICABS)
 RT.07 – Media Filter Drain (previously referred to as Ecology Embankment)
 RT.08 – Bioretention Area
Runoff treatment to remove pollutants can be best accomplished before concentrating the
flow. A vegetated filter strip provides a very efficient and cost-effective runoff treatment option.
Vegetated filter strips function by slowing runoff velocities and filtering out sediment and other
pollutants and by providing some infiltration into underlying soils. Vegetated filter strips consist
of gradually sloping areas that run adjacent to the roadway. As highway runoff sheets off the
roadway surface, it flows through the grass filter. The flow can then be intercepted by a ditch
or other conveyance system and routed to a flow control BMP, discharge point, or outfall.
One challenge associated with vegetated filter strips is that sheet flow can sometimes be
difficult to maintain. Consequently, vegetated filter strips can be short-circuited by concentrated
flows, which create eroded rills or flow channels across the strips. This results in little or no
treatment of stormwater runoff. Note: Vegetated filter strips are not recommended for use
in arid climates. In semiarid climates, specify drought-tolerant grasses.
Biofiltration swales provide an effective means of removing conventional pollutants and offer a
relatively low-cost treatment solution. A biofiltration swale consists of a flat-bottomed,
shallow-sloped swale planted with grasses. The swales function by slowing runoff velocities,
filtering out sediment and other pollutants, and providing some infiltration into underlying
soils. Concentrated flow from the roadway section is directed to the high end of the swale. For
wider swales, incorporate flow spreaders or diffusers into the bioswale to maintain sheet flow
and to prevent the formation of small channels within the swale bottom. In addition, analyze
the swale design for erosion potential from larger storm events.
The PEO can also integrate biofiltration swales into the stormwater conveyance system. Existing
roadside ditches may be good candidates for upgrading to biofiltration swales. Biofiltration
swales are not recommended for use in arid climates. In semiarid climates, specify drought-
tolerant grasses.

April 2019
Use a wet biofiltration swale (a variation of a basic biofiltration swale) where the longitudinal
slope is slight, the water table is high, or continuous low base flow will likely result in saturated
soil conditions.
Another variation of a basic biofiltration swale is the continuous inflow biofiltration swale for
applications where water enters a biofiltration swale continuously along the side slope, rather
than being concentrated at the upstream end.
A number of BMPs are available that integrate amendments into their soil composition. Soil
amendments can be a variety of materials but usually consist of a 2- to 4-inch-thick blanket of
compost, spread over the existing soil. The PEO may leave it as a blanket or incorporate it into
the soil to improve soil quality and texture, and thus improve infiltration. Soil amendments bind
to dissolved metals, while biota in organic soil break down and neutralize the surface runoff
pollutants. Soil amendments also have a very high capacity to hold moisture (up to 1½ times
their weight) and can improve infiltration rates and significantly reduce off-site flows. For
more information on soil properties and composition, see Section 5-4.3.2, Soil Amendments.
The media filter drain is another option the PEO can use to provide significant pollution
reduction and flow attenuation by simply modifying the effective treatment surface of the
roadway prism beyond the edge of pavement. Its application is limited to highways located in
relatively flat terrain, but the PEO can construct this BMP with little or no additional right of
way, making it a cost-effective solution to managing highway runoff.
Another similar and effective BMP using soil amendments is the compost-amended vegetated
filter strip (CAVFS), which is a variation of the standard vegetated filter strip. This BMP
incorporates compost amendments and subsurface gravel courses to augment the vegetation's
basic treatment properties while also supplementing the need for a flow control system by
providing a limited amount of storage.
5-2.2.4 Wetpool BMPs

Wetpool BMPs are discussed in Section 5-4.1.4 and include the following:
 RT.12 – Wet Pond
 CO.01 – Combined Wet/Detention Pond
 RT.13 – Constructed Stormwater Treatment Wetland
 CO.02 – Combined Stormwater Treatment Wetland/Detention Pond
Wet ponds are constructed basins containing a permanent pool of water throughout the wet
season. Wet ponds function by settling suspended solids. They are usually more effective and
efficient when constructed using multiple cells (a series of individual smaller basins) where
coarser sediments become trapped in the first cell or forebay. Wet pond designs can also
provide flow control by adding detention volume (live storage) above the dead storage.
Because the function of a wet pond depends upon maintaining a permanent pool of water to
provide treatment, this BMP is generally not recommended for use in arid or semiarid climates.

April 2019
A wetpool BMP must be an on-line facility receiving runoff from only new impervious areas or
equivalent areas. If a decision has been made to treat runoff from existing impervious surfaces
per the retrofit instructions in Section 3-4, then the wetpool BMP would be an on-line facility
sized to receive flows from all areas being treated.
Design constructed stormwater treatment wetlands for runoff treatment alone or to serve
the dual function of runoff treatment and flow control. This BMP requires the collection and
conveyance of stormwater to the facility inlet. Sediment and associated pollutants are
removed in the first cell of these systems via settling. The processes of settling, biofiltration,
biodegradation, and bioaccumulation provide additional treatment in the subsequent cell or
cells. In general, the PEO could incorporate constructed stormwater treatment wetlands into
the drainage design wherever water can be collected and conveyed to a maintainable artificial
basin.
Constructed stormwater treatment wetlands provide treatment for dissolved metals. However,
the PEO must consider the availability of water and the water needs of plants used in the
stormwater wetland. The landscape context for stormwater wetland placement must be
appropriate for the creation of an artificial wetland (groundwater, soils, and surrounding
vegetation). Do not use natural wetlands for stormwater treatment purposes. (See Section
3-3.7 for further guidelines on protecting existing wetlands.)
Very few constructed stormwater wetlands exist in Washington State. Limited information is
available concerning the long-term viability of vegetation installed in these facilities and the
maintenance requirements. However, constructed stormwater wetlands can be a preferred
option for stormwater management relative to other surface treatment and flow control
facilities. In general, this option is a more aesthetically appealing alternative to ponds.
Secondary functions include the creation of habitat for terrestrial wildlife, visual screening,
and reduced obtrusiveness of drainage facilities.
5-2.2.5 Oil Control BMPs

Oil control BMPs are discussed in Sections 5-3.5, 5-4.1.3, 5-4.1.5, and 5-4.2.1 and include the
following:
 RT.22 – Oil Containment Boom (high-use sites, high-use intersections)
 IN.01 – Bioinfiltration Pond (eastern Washington high-use roadways and parking areas)
 RT.02 – Vegetated Filter Strip: Only Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip (CAVFS)
(eastern Washington high-use roadways and parking areas)
 RT.08 – Bioretention Area (eastern Washington high-use sites, high-use intersections,
and eastern Washington high-use roadways and parking areas)
5-2.2.6 Phosphorous Control BMPs

Phosphorous control BMPs are discussed in Sections 5-4.1.3 and 5-4.1.4 and include the
following:
 RT.12 – Wet Pond (large)
 RT.07 – Media Filter Drain (without the compost blanket)
April 2019
5-2.3 BMPs for Stormwater Flow Control

Stormwater flow control BMPs are designed to control the flow rate or the amount of runoff
leaving a site after development. The primary mechanisms used to manage flow control include
dispersion, infiltration, and detention. Increased flows can cause downstream damage due to
flooding, erosion, and scour, as well as degradation of water quality and in-stream habitat
because of channel and streambank erosion.
Hydrologic criteria and analysis methods for sizing flow control BMPs are discussed in Section
4-3 for western Washington and Section 4-4 for eastern Washington. The following provides
an overview of the most commonly used flow control BMPs for highway application.

Infiltration BMPs for flow control are discussed in Section 5-4.2.1 and include the following:
 IN.01 – Bioinfiltration Pond (eastern Washington only)
 IN.02 – Infiltration Pond
 IN.03 – Infiltration Trench
 IN.04 – Infiltration Vault (see Category 1 BMPs document)
 IN.05 – Drywell
 IN.06 – Permeable Pavement Surfaces (see Category 1 BMPs document)
A bioinfiltration pond is categorized in this manual under infiltration BMPs for convenience
and consistency. It actually functions as both a filtering BMP and an infiltration BMP and can
therefore provide runoff treatment and flow control on a limited basis.
Two commonly used types of infiltration systems are infiltration ponds and subsurface
infiltration. An infiltration pond consists of a shallow impoundment designed to infiltrate
stormwater into the soil. Subsurface infiltration may occur via an infiltration trench, vault,
or drywell subject to the underground injection control (UIC) rules:
https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Underground-
injection-control-program. (See Sections 2-4.1.3 and 4-5.4 for further guidelines on wellhead
protection areas.)
An infiltration trench (also termed an infiltration gallery) consists of a rock-filled trench with
no outlet. Typically, the trench also incorporates a large underdrain pipe to increase capacity.
Runoff is then stored in the pipe and rock voids and slowly infiltrates through the bottom and
sides of the trench and into the soil matrix over a couple of days. For trenches, this process is
also referred to as exfiltration. Drywells consist of perforated manhole structures surrounded
by drain rock and function similarly to trenches.

April 2019
Infiltration systems are practicable only in areas where groundwater tables are sufficiently
below the bottom of the facility and in highly permeable soil conditions. Infiltration systems
can help recharge the groundwater, thus restoring base flows to stream systems. However,
to protect the groundwater and prevent clogging of the system, stormwater runoff must first
pass through some combination of pretreatment measures, such as a swale or sediment basin,
before entering an infiltration system. Compared with other stormwater flow control practices,
infiltration systems can be problematic due to siltation.
Consider subsurface infiltration systems only when room is inadequate to construct an
infiltration pond. These systems are difficult to maintain and verify whether they are
functioning properly.

Dispersion BMPs for flow control are discussed in Section 5-4.2.2 and include the following:
 FC.01 – Natural Dispersion
 FC.02 – Engineered Dispersion
For an overview of dispersion techniques, see Section 5-2.2.2.
5-2.3.3 Detention BMPs

Detention BMPs are discussed in Section 5-4.2.3 and includes the following:
 FC.03 – Detention Pond
Detention facilities generally take the form of either a pond or an underground vault or tank.
They operate by providing a volume of live storage with an outlet control structure designed
to release flow at a reduced rate over time. Configure a pond as a dry pond to control flow only
or combine it with a wet pond to also provide runoff treatment within the same footprint.
5-3 BMP Selection Process

This section provides guidelines and criteria on the selection of permanent BMPs for WSDOT
projects. BMP selection is necessary to address permanent stormwater management for a
project and to complete the Hydraulic Report. The following subsections outline the decision-
making process for selecting BMPs for projects.
WSDOT requires the use of LID techniques in all facilities where feasible. The PEO must begin
LID design with a thorough site analysis. Section 2-3.2 provides guidelines and information on
how to conduct a site analysis. LID approaches to stormwater management rely heavily on soils
and plants to treat stormwater runoff. Therefore, it is important to engage the Region or HQ
Landscape Architect, Region Materials Engineer, and the Geotechnical Engineer for analysis,
testing, and assistance throughout the design process.

April 2019
The first thing the PEO must consider when incorporating LID techniques is how to preserve as
much of the existing vegetation as possible within the project site. The establishment and
enforcement of work exclusion zones must occur during all phases of construction to protect
vegetation root zones as well as to avoid soil compaction and damage to plants. Consult with
the Region or HQ Landscape Architect or certified arborist to determine the root zones and
protection areas.
Projects must restore any area with disturbed soils using the guidelines in Section 5-4.3.2, Soil
Amendments, or Ecology’s 2012 SWMMWW BMP T5.13: Post-Construction Soil Quality and
Depth. Retain, in an undisturbed state, the duff layer and native topsoil to the maximum extent
practicable. For any areas that require grading, remove and stockpile the duff layer and topsoil
on site in a designated, controlled area, not adjacent to public resources and critical areas.
It is acceptable to use a mixture of BMPs to treat the runoff from a site. In some cases, a project
may require the use of a “treatment train” to meet the manual’s LID, runoff treatment, and
flow duration requirements.
5-3.1 Part I: Determine the Applicable Minimum Requirements and

Project-Specific Considerations
Read Chapter 3 to determine the applicable minimum requirements for the project. Start at
Section 3-2.1 and analyze the project as a whole. Minimum requirements apply to the project
based on the project size from beginning project limit to end project limit within right of way
boundaries. Use Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 to determine which minimum requirements apply
at the project level. If necessary, use Figure 3-3 to determine the applicable minimum
requirement at the threshold discharge area (TDA) level. Next, go to those subsequent sections
in Chapter 3 for each applicable minimum requirement and take time to thoroughly read and
understand each minimum requirement.
Minimum Requirement 5 (Runoff Treatment) in Section 3-2.5 has a list of water bodies that
require only basic treatment. Project TDAs that discharge to water bodies on this list must
provide basic runoff treatment, but not enhanced treatment for phosphorus or dissolved metals
removal. Minimum Requirement 6 (Flow Control) in Section 3-2.6 lists exempted water bodies.
Project TDAs discharging to water bodies on this list do not require LID or flow control. Section
1-2.1 points out where local stormwater requirements could supersede or supplement the
guidelines provided herein. Check with a Region Hydraulics Engineer (RHE) or Headquarters (HQ)
Hydraulics Section representative when there are questions regarding local jurisdictional
requirements.
5-3.2 Part II: Select Source Control BMPs

Certain types of activities and facilities may require source control BMPs. Determine whether
there are pollutant-generating activities or facilities in the project that warrant source controls.
For detailed descriptions of the source control activities and associated BMPs, see Volume IV of
Ecology’s SWMMWW or Chapter 8 of the SWMMEW. To reduce pollutants, specify the source
control BMPs for the activities listed in Section 5-2.1. For any deviations from the source control
BMPs listed in either the SWMMWW or the SWMMEW, the PEO must provide equivalent

April 2019
pollution source control benefits. The PEO must include documentation in the Project File for
why the deviation is considered equivalent. Section 5-3.6 describes the process for seeking
approval of such deviations. The project may have additional source control responsibilities as a
result of area-specific pollution control plans (such as Ecology approved Basin Plans or TMDLs),
ordinances, and regulations.
5-3.3 Part III: Determine LID Feasibility and Select LID BMPs
For each TDA in the project that exceeds the triggers set forth in Minimum Requirements 5
and/or 6 (see Sections 3-2.5 and 3-2.6 and Figure 3-3, Steps 7 and 8), determine LID feasibility
and select a LID BMP by using the following process (see Figure 5-1). Below is additional
information for Step 2 of Figure 5-1.
Step 2: Determine whether an LID stormwater BMP can be used within the TDA (see Section
4-5).
If infiltration is feasible, select LID BMPs in Tier 1 or Tier 2. Tier 1 BMPs should be used before
Tier 2 BMPs unless Tier 1 BMPs are infeasible. For LID infiltration BMPs in Tier 2, there are two
options for pretreatment:
Option 1: The first option is to infiltrate runoff through soils that meet the site characterization
and site suitability criteria for both flow control and runoff treatment. Infiltration treatment
facilities must be preceded by a pretreatment facility such as a presettling basin (see Section
5-4.3.1) to reduce plugging. Any of the basic runoff treatment BMPs can also be used for
pretreatment. If possible, design the facility to meet the requirements for runoff treatment and
flow control. Sections 4-5 and 5-4.2.1 provide guidelines and criteria on applications and design
of infiltration facilities (see BMPs IN.01, IN.02, IN.03, and IN.04) that provide both flow control
and runoff treatment.
Option 2: The second option is to infiltrate runoff through rapidly draining soils that do not
meet the site characterization and site suitability criteria for providing adequate runoff
treatment. Refer to Section 5-4.2.1 for design criteria for infiltration facilities intended to
provide flow control without runoff treatment (see BMPs IN.02 through IN.05). In this option,
a basic runoff treatment facility must be added upstream of the facility. The infiltration facility
must provide adequate storage volume to achieve the flow control standards of Minimum
Requirement 6 (see Section 3-3.6).

April 2019
Step 1 Can the stormwater be Apply dispersion Does dispersion

dispersed within the TDA? Yes FC.01 – Natural satisfy all runoff
Read Section 5-4.2.2 to Dispersion treatment and flow Yes
determine whether site FC.02 – Engineered control requirements
conditions in TDA are
appropriate for dispersion Dispersion within the TDA?
No Done
Step 2 Can a LID BMP be used No
within the TDA?
No LID BMPs not feasible,
(Apply Infiltration Design
Go to Figure 5-2 Flow
Criteria and LID
Control BMP selection flow
Feasibility Section 4-5) chart*
Yes
Use one or more of these BMPs (see Notes): LID requirement met
RT.02 Compost Amended Vegetated Filter to the extent feasible
Strips (CAVFS)1
RT.04 Continuous Inflow Compost-Amended
Tier 1
Biofiltration Swale (CICABS)1

RT.07 Media Filter Drain (MFD)2
RT.08 Bioretention Area2 Does the LID BMP
IN.01 Bioinfiltration Pond (E. WA only) meet all the runoff
Natural Depression Storage3,4 treatment and flow
IN.02 Infiltration Pond4 Yes Done
control requirements
Tier 2
IN.03 Infiltration Trench4 for the TDA?

IN.04 Infiltration Vault4
IN.05 Dry Well4
A BMP from Tier 1 is required unless all Tier 1 No
options are determined infeasible Go to Figure 5-2 Flow Control BMP
selection flow chart*
Notes
1. Model for flow control benefit through infiltration using site specific infiltration data
2. The use of underdrains is not allowed if used to meet the LID requirement.
3. Use Section 4-7 Closed Depression Analysis for modeling methods and use
performance requirements for infiltration pond.
4. Follow pretreatment guidance in Section 5-3.3 when used as an LID BMP.
Figure 5-1 Low-impact development BMP selection flow chart.

April 2019
5-3.4 Part IV: Select Flow Control BMPs

For each TDA in the project that exceeds the triggers set forth in Minimum Requirement 6 (see
Section 3-2.6 and Figure 3-3, Step 8), and where the TDA cannot apply a flow exemption listed
in Section 3-3.6.2, select a flow control BMP by using the process in Figure 5-2. Below is
additional information for Step 3 and Step 4 of Figure 5-2.
Step 3: Determine whether a regional detention facility is within or near the project limits or
TDA (see Figure 5-2).
Regional detention facilities are usually owned and operated by the local jurisdiction.
A fee is paid to the local jurisdiction to allow project stormwater to flow to the regional facility.
This method of stormwater mitigation is useful when the project is within a well-developed
watershed with very little right of way to allow for infiltration, dispersion, or detention BMPs.
The PEO must work with the local jurisdiction to determine whether the regional detention
facility has adequate capacity and the ability to meet target discharge rates to mitigate for
project stormwater. This requires that the PEO verify with the local jurisdiction the design
criteria used to size the pond and outlet control structure. If the regional facility was not
designed to control flow durations, or has not received approval from Ecology as an alternative
in accordance with Ecology’s SWMMWW or the SWMMEW, then WSDOT cannot fully rely on
that facility to meet its flow control needs.
Step 4: Determine whether a combined flow control and runoff treatment facility can be
designed for the project (see Figure 5-2).
Combination stormwater BMPs provide both runoff treatment and flow control in one facility;
therefore, a combined facility is often less expensive to construct and has reduced maintenance
costs when compared to two separate facilities. If the TDA must provide enhanced runoff
treatment, evaluate whether a combination stormwater wetland/detention pond should be
used. Consider maintenance and monitoring issues with this BMP. (Refer to BMPs CO.01 and
CO.02 in Section 5-4.1.4 for design criteria for combination stormwater BMPs.) For eastern
Washington, the PEO can also use a bioinfiltration pond (see BMP IN.01) combined with a
drywell (see BMP IN.05) as a combination facility.

April 2019
Step 1 Does dispersion

YES YES
C.01 – Natural Dispersion
FC.02 – Engineered Dispersion
NO
Step 2 NO
YES – Presettling Basin – Bioinfiltration

YES
Any basic treatment BMP Pond (EWA only)
– Infiltration Pond
– Infiltration Trench
NO
– Infiltration Vault
– Dry Well
Step 3 NO
YES YES
YES
NO
Step 4 NO
Can a combined flow control and runoff
NO
treatment BMP be used to meet flow control
requirements for the TDA? YES Go to Figure 5-3 Step 2 for current TDA being
analyzed. Repeat Steps in this flow chart for each
NO TDA that exceeds thresholds in Figure 3-3, Step 7
Step 5
Can a detention pond fit
within the TDA to meet flow
requirements for the TDA? YES
YES
– Detention Pond
NO
Step 6 NO
Figure 5-2 Flow control BMP selection flow chart.

April 2019
5-3.5 Part V: Select Runoff Treatment BMPs

For each TDA in the project that exceeds the triggers set forth in Minimum Requirement 5 (see
Section 3-2.5 and Figure 3-3, Step 7), select a runoff treatment BMP by using Figure 5-3. Below
is additional information for certain steps in Figure 5-3.
Step 2: Determine whether an oil control facility or device is required.
Oil control devices are required for projects that exceed the oil control thresholds in Section
3-3.5.4. If oil control is required, select and apply an oil treatment facility. See Figure 5-3 for
available options that provide oil control and Section 4-5.4 for a list of other oil control BMPs
used for stormwater discharges to UIC facilities. The PEO must first read and understand the
requirements of Section 5-3.7 before moving forward with choosing an oil control BMP from
this section. Place oil control BMPs as close to the source as possible, but protected from
sediment.
Step 4: Determine the receiving waters, possible pollutants of concern
To obtain a more complete determination of the potential impacts of a stormwater discharge,
conduct a downstream analysis to determine the natural receiving waters (groundwater,
wetland, lake, river, stream, or marine water) for the stormwater drainage from the TDA. If the
discharge is to a local municipal storm drainage system, determine the receiving waters for the
drainage system. This is necessary to determine the applicable treatment menu from which to
select treatment facilities. See Section 2-4.2 for a discussion on 303(d) listed water bodies and
TMDLs. Determine if an Ecology approved Basin Plan exists that includes the receiving waters.
See HRM 3-3.8 Minimum Requirement 8 to see how Ecology approved Basin Plans may affect
runoff treatment requirements and BMP selection.
Step 5: Determine whether phosphorus control is required.
Refer to the plans, ordinances, and regulations mentioned in Step 4 as sources of information.

April 2019
Step 1 YES YES

C.01 – Natural Dispersion
NO FC.02 – Engineered Dispersion
NO
Step 2
– Oil Containment Boom (high-use sites, high-use intersections)

YES
RT.02 – CAVFS (EW high-use roadways and parking areas)
RT.08 – Bioretention Area** (EW high-use roads and parking areas)
NO
IN.01 – Bioinfiltration Pond** (EW high-use roadways and parking
Step 3 areas)
YES
– Presettling Basin – Bioinfiltration
Any basic treatment BMP Pond (EWA only) YES
– Infiltration Pond
NO – Infiltration Trench
– Infiltration Vault
Step 4 – Dry Well
NO
Step 5 Is a phosphorous RT.12 – Wet Pond (Large) – Combined Stormwater

YES
RT.07 – Media Filter Drain (no Treatment Wetland/Detention Pond
control BMP required? compost blanket)
(Consult Section 3-3.5)
NO YES
Was a combined flow

Step 6 control and runoff YES
– Wet/Detention Pond YES

treatment facility chosen
in Step 4 of Figure 5-2?
NO
NO NO
Is an enhanced
Step 7 treatment BMP – Compost-Amended
required? (Consult Vegetated Filter Strip (CAVFS) YES
YES
Section 3-3.5) – Compost-Amended
Biofiltration Swale (CABS)
NO – Media Filter Drain
– Bioretention Area
– Constructed Stormwater NO
– Vegetated Filter Strip Treatment Wetland

– Biofiltration Swale
– Wet Biofiltration Swale
– Continuous Inflow
Biofiltration Swale
– Wet Pond
**Some High-use sites in eastern Washington can use bioretention areas and bioinfiltration ponds to meet the oil
control requirement. See Section 5-3.5 for more details.
Figure 5-3 Runoff treatment BMP selection flow chart.

April 2019
5-3.5.1 LID BMP Selection for Site Development

Ecology’s stormwater management manuals for western (SWMMWW) and eastern (SWMMEW)
Washington provide more specific guidelines for stormwater BMP design related to site
development for park and ride lots, rest areas, maintenance yards, vactor decant and street
sweepings facilities, and ferry terminals. Stormwater facility designs use LID methods and
techniques to conserve and use on-site natural features to protect water quality and more
closely mimic predevelopment hydrology. WSDOT facility projects can use the appropriate
Ecology stormwater manual, an Ecology-approved local agency stormwater manual, or the
guidance provided below.
WSDOT requires the use of LID techniques in all facilities where feasible. The HRM website
(www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/HighwayRunoffManual.htm) shows examples of LID
BMPs. Refer to Figure 5-4 for the site development BMP selection process. It is acceptable to
use a mixture of BMPs from this list to treat the runoff from a site. BMPs from Tier 1 must be
used first to meet the LID requirement. In some cases, a project may require the use of a
“treatment train” to meet the manual’s LID, runoff treatment, and flow duration requirements.
Feasibility criteria for roof BMPs appear in the respective manuals. Green roofs are more
expensive to install, but may have better life cycle costs than traditional roofs. Rainwater
harvesting can be used to supplement water for toilet flushing and irrigation. For more
information on these techniques, see the 2012 LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget
Sound.
Permeable pavements, such as pervious concrete, permeable asphalt, or permeable pavers,
have limited uses on WSDOT facilities due to high traffic loads, heavy axle loads, and the
possibility of hazardous material spills. However, projects should use permeable pavements
where feasible. In general, WSDOT guidelines allow the use of permeable pavements only in
pedestrian areas and in car parking stalls at park and ride lots, rest areas, and maintenance
facility employee parking areas. However, projects may use permeable pavements in other
areas if approved by the Region Materials Engineer and the State Pavement Engineer.
Occasionally, WSDOT will design and build facilities, such as park and ride lots, and turn over
ownership and maintenance responsibilities to local governments or transit agencies. In those
cases, the use of permeable pavements may occur in other locations than those specified
above if desired and approved by the local agency taking the ownership and maintenance
responsibility of the facility. Contact the State Pavement Engineer for design and construction
specifications for permeable pavements. (See IN.06, Permeable Pavement Surfaces, for
additional design guidance.)
Permeable pavement systems require highly specialized designs. WSDOT Pavement Policy
provides minimum pavement thicknesses for typical applications. (See WSDOT Pavement
Policy more information.) When utilizing infiltration, the underlying soils must meet SSC-7
in Section 4-5.1, or a treatment layer must be provided (normally in the form of a sand filter).
In addition, construction techniques can significantly impact the infiltration characteristics
of the underlying soil. (See the 2012 LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound for
more information.)

April 2019
Can the stormwater be dispersed Apply dispersion Does dispersion satisfy all
Yes
within the TDA? FC.01 – Natural Dispersion runoff treatment and flow
Read Section 5-4.2.2 to determine FC.02 – Engineered control requirements Yes
whether site conditions in TDA are Dispersion within the TDA?
appropriate for dispersion
No
Can a LID BMP be used No Done
within the TDA? LID BMPs not feasible, Go
(Apply Infiltration No
to Figure 5-2 Flow Control
Design Criteria and LID BMP selection flow chart*
Feasibility Section 4-5)
Yes
Use one or more of these BMPs (see Notes): Does the TDA
BMP T5.40: Preserving Native Vegetation1 include any
BMP T5.41: Better Site Design buildings or
RT.02 Compost Amended Vegetated Filter structures with
Strips (CAVFS)2 roofs?
RT.04 Continuous Inflow Compost
Amended Biofiltration Swale (CICABS)2 Yes No
RT.07 Media Filter Drain (MFD)3
BMP T5.10A: Downspout Full Infiltration1
Tier 1
RT.08 Bioretention Area3

BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion Systems1
IN.01 Bioinfiltration Pond (E. WA only)
BMP T5.10C: Perforated Stub-out Connections1
BMP T5.11: Concentrated Flow
BMP T5.17: Vegetated Roofs1 Done
Dispersion1
BMP T5.19: Minimal Excavation Foundations1
BMP T5.12: Sheet Flow Dispersion1
BMP T5.20: Rainwater Harvesting1
BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion1
BMP T5.16: Tree Retention and Tree
Planting1
LID requirement met
BMP T5.18: Reverse Slope Sidewalks1
Natural Depression Storage4,5 to the extent feasible
IN.02 Infiltration Pond5
Tier 2
IN.03 Infiltration Trench5

IN.04 Infiltration Vault5
IN.05 Dry Well5 Does the LID BMP Yes
A BMP from Tier 1 is required unless all Tier 1 options meet all the runoff
are determined infeasible treatment and flow
control requirements
for the TDA?
No
Go to Figure 5-2
Flow Control BMP
Notes
selection flow chart*
1. Ecology SWMMWW Volume V
2. Model for flow control benefit through infiltration using site specific infiltration data
3. The use of underdrains is not allowed if used to meet the LID requirement
4. Use Section 4-7 Closed Depression Analysis for modeling methods and use
performance requirements for infiltration pond
5. Follow pretreatment guidance in Section 5-3.3 when used as an LID BMP
Figure 5-4 Site development LID BMP selection flow chart.

April 2019
5-3.6 Seeking Authorization for Alternative BMP Options

Note: Prior to seeking approval, designers should go to the HRM publications webpage to see
the current HRM version and check whether the alternative BMP has been added as an available
option.
This section contains Ecology-approved permanent BMPs that WSDOT finds acceptable for
highway applications. However, site and project constraints or programmatic constraints may
compel the PEO to consider alternatives to BMPs available in this manual. The pursuit of
alternative options falls into the following categories:
1. Ecology-approved BMPs not included in this manual because WSDOT does not consider
them viable for widespread highway application due to cost considerations associated with
their maintenance. BMPs falling under this category received approval for general use by
Ecology.
2. BMPs with potential for widespread highway applications that have not received general
use approval by Ecology. A BMP falling under this category is considered an emerging
technology and may or may not have received a conditional use or pilot use designation
by Ecology.
3. Project- or site-specific approaches for seeking compliance with federal and state water
quality regulations via the demonstrative approach.
Figures 5-5 and 5-6 are general descriptions of the processes for seeking approval for runoff
treatment and flow control BMPs not currently contained in the HRM. To help avoid delays
in processing requests, consult the Region Hydraulics Engineer (RHE).
5-3.6.1 Category 1: Ecology-Approved BMPs Not in the HRM

Ecology-approved BMPs not included in the HRM require RHE and Maintenance Superintendent
approval for use. Design criteria for these BMPs are available on WSDOT’s HRM website:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/FAQ.htm. However, if WSDOT approval is not granted,
the PEO must select an acceptable alternative.
5-3.6.2 Category 2: Emerging Technologies

Ecology’s stormwater management guidance manuals make provisions for using emerging BMP
technologies, which they define as:
Technologies that have not been evaluated using approved protocols, but for which
preliminary data indicate that they may provide a desirable level of stormwater
pollutant removal.
Use of an emerging technology requires WSDOT as well as Ecology approvals, as described
in Figure 5-6. 1 Seek authorization far enough in advance to allow for contingencies if use of the
1
Ecology’s Emerging Technologies web page contains additional information regarding Ecology’s program
to evaluate emerging stormwater treatment technologies.
April 2019
emerging technology is denied. Note: Internal review and approval of an emerging technology’s
conceptual design and approach can take at least three months.
In some instances, an emerging technology may have already received a pilot use or conditional
use designation from Ecology. 2 For emerging technologies not currently in widespread use, the
pilot use designation allows limited use by projects to enable field testing of its performance,
subject to an Ecology-approved monitoring plan and the limitations imposed on the number
and location of such installations.
Ecology’s conditional use designation applies to emerging technologies currently in widespread
use in Washington (or considered equivalent to Ecology-approved technologies) that it considers
likely to attain a general use designation—provided that a necessary field evaluation to obtain
a general use designation is completed within a specified time period.
Conditional use BMPs included in the HRM can be used on any project location that meets the
terms of the conditional use designation. However, the PEO must contact the HQ ESO
Stormwater and Watersheds Program to learn whether WSDOT wants to use the site to fulfill
the monitoring requirement of the conditional use designation.
Ideally, the PEO will identify the need for potentially pursuing an emerging technologies
approach during scoping (the project definition phase) or early in the design phase. This allows
the PEO, in consultation with the HQ ESO Stormwater and Watersheds Program, to account for
the expenses involved in monitoring and evaluating the BMP’s performance when
programming project costs.
During the project design phase, the PEO will develop the conceptual design and document the
technical and engineering basis for the approach (conceptual design thesis). The conceptual
design thesis provides the necessary background to enable the RHE and the HQ ESO
Stormwater and Watersheds Program to make an informed decision about whether it is in the
department’s interest to invest in the evaluation of the technology. 3 The PEO may seek RHE
and HQ Hydraulics Section’s assistance in preparing this documentation, which should include:
 A description of the emerging technology and its application.
 The rationale for its development and use.
 Existing hydraulic and treatment performance data for the emerging technology
(if available).
 General design and construction considerations.
 Site-suitability characteristics.
 Hydraulic design.
 Operations and maintenance requirements.
2
Ecology’s Emerging Technologies web page contains the designation status of emerging technologies undergoing
evaluation.
3
This documentation already exists for BMPs with an Ecology pilot- or conditional-use designation and is available
on Ecology’s Emerging Technologies web page.
April 2019
Category 3 Pathway
Is BMP considered an Contact HQ Hydraulics

Does BMP have a emerging technology? to pursue
No
No Demonstrative
General Use
Approach with
Category 1 Pathway
designation from
Ecology? Ecology.
Category 2 Pathway
Yes
Pursue emerging
Yes
technology
approval
(Figure 5-6).
Is BMP approved for

project use by Region Revise
No
Hydraulics Engineer & BMP
Region Maintenance selection.
Superintendent?
Yes
Implement BMP
according to guidelines.
Figure 5-5 Process for using BMPs not in the HRM. .

April 2019
Prepare
Does BMP have Pilot
No Conceptual
Use or Conditional Use
Design Thesis for
designation from
preliminary evaluation.
Ecology?
Yes
Is BMP approved for project use No Revise No Region & HQ

by the RHE & Region BMP approval of
Maintenance Superintendent? selection. Design Thesis?
Yes
No
Yes
Is BMP approved for project use
by HQ Highway Runoff Coordinate with
Program? technology’s vendor Yes Is BMP a
to follow Ecology proprietary
Yes technology?
TAPE Process.
Implement BMP consistent
with designation No (Public Domain BMPs)
requirements (for Pilot Use
BMPs, coordinate with Prepare detailed Quality
Revise Yes
technology’s proponent). Assurance Project Plan
QAPP &
(QAPP) for emerging
No resubmit.
technology BMP.
Abandon
No
concept.
No
Revise Region & HQ
Yes
QAPP & approval of
resubmit. QAPP?
No
Yes
Submit QAPP to
Implement BMP Yes
Ecology for review
consistent with QAPP
Approved? to seek Pilot Use-
QAPP.
level designation.
Figure 5-6 Emerging technology approval process: Category 2 pathway.

April 2019
Pursuing evaluation of an emerging proprietary technology requires coordination with the

technology’s vendor to follow Ecology’s Technology Assessment Protocol (TAPE) and evaluation
process. For more information on the TAPE protocol, check Ecology’s Emerging Technologies
web page.
Public domain technologies require preparation of a detailed Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) for evaluating the proposed emerging technology that is acceptable to WSDOT and
Ecology. In addition to covering the elements included in the design thesis, the QAPP describes
the procedures to be followed in evaluating the emerging technology. RHE and HQ ESO
Stormwater and Watersheds Program assistance should be sought in preparing the QAPP.
Ecology’s January 2008 publication, Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for
Environmental Studies, presents detailed instructions on preparing a QAPP. The project’s
environmental permit coordinator needs to include the design thesis and QAPP in project
submittals early in the permitting process. Upon Ecology’s approval of the QAPP, the PEO must
remain involved through completion of construction to ensure proper installation of the facility
and any monitoring-related elements.
Once the facility is operational, HQ ESO Stormwater and Watersheds Program staff will assist
the region in implementing the QAPP; completing the evaluation package (including monitoring
data and data analysis); petitioning Ecology for evaluation and assignment of use level
designation; and continuing development of the technology where applicable.
5-3.6.3 Category 3: The Demonstrative Approach

Projects have the option of seeking compliance with water quality regulations via the
demonstrative approach (see Section 1-2.2 for a comparison of the demonstrative approach
with the presumptive approach). The demonstrative approach requires submittal of a site-
specific stormwater management proposal to the Highway Runoff Program Manager in the
HQ Hydraulics Section for Ecology review and approval.
To obtain Ecology approval, the PEO must demonstrate that it will not adversely affect water
quality by providing appropriate supporting data showing that the alternative approach
satisfies state and federal water quality laws. In developing alternate treatment and control
options, consider and document the site limitations using the Engineering and Economic
Feasibility Evaluation (see Section 3-5 and Appendix 2A). While this evaluation tool will provide
the PEO with some of the necessary background information to make decisions regarding
alternative approaches, it will not in and of itself satisfy federal and state requirements to make
maximum extent practicable (MEP) and all known, available, and reasonable technologies
(AKART) determinations. If the PEO is pursuing this approach, contact the Highway Runoff
Program Manager in the HQ Hydraulics Section directly and as soon as possible. The timeline
and expectations for providing this technical justification may be extensive, depending on the
complexity of the individual project and the nature of the receiving water environment.

April 2019
Depending on the nature of the alternative approach proposal, the PEO may need a dilution
analysis to demonstrate that the project will not adversely affect water quality. If applicable to
the proposal, base the dilution analysis on (1) critical flow rates of the discharge and the
receiving water, and (2) estimated concentrations of pollutants of concern in the discharge and
the upgradient receiving water. A standard procedure for determining the value of those four
variables has yet to be developed by Ecology. Until it is developed, Ecology will have to
make case-by-case decisions concerning valid approaches to the analysis.
5-3.7 BMP Validation and Cost-Effectiveness

Once the PEO selects a stormwater BMP, be aware that there are costs and obligations involved
in the long-term operation and maintenance of the BMP. For this reason, the PEO should
contact the local maintenance office and discuss the proposed stormwater BMPs and overall
stormwater design to determine any area-specific BMP restrictions or requirements. Table 5-1
helps the PEO evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different stormwater BMPs by assessing typical
construction costs, annual operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses, and effective life (how
soon the BMP may need to be replaced).
Table 5-1 Relative rankings of cost elements and effective life of BMP options.
BMP Capital Costs O&M Costs Effective Life[1]

Vegetated Filter Strip Low Low 20–50 years
Wet Biofiltration Swale Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 5–20 years
Continuous Inflow Biofiltration Swale Low to Moderate Low 5–20 years
Media Filter Drain Low Low to Moderate 25 years
Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Low Low 5–20 years[2]
Wet Pond Moderate to High Low to Moderate 20–50 years
Combined Wet/Detention Pond Moderate Low to Moderate 20–50 years
Constructed Stormwater Treatment Wetland Moderate to High Moderate 20–50 years
Combined Stormwater Wetland/Detention Pond Low to Moderate Moderate 20–50 years
Wet Vault (Category 1 BMP) Moderate to High High 50–100 years
Combined Wet/Detention Vault (Category 1 Moderate to High High 50–100 years
BMP)
Bioinfiltration Pond Low to Moderate Low 5–20 years
Infiltration Pond Moderate Moderate 5–10 years
before deep tilling required
Infiltration Trench Moderate to High Moderate 10–15 years
Infiltration Vault Moderate Moderate to High 5–10 years
Drywell Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 5–20 years
Engineered and Natural Dispersion Low Low 50–100 years
Detention Pond Moderate Low 20–50 years
Detention Vault (Category 1 BMP) Moderate to High High 50–100 years
Detention Tank (Category 1 BMP) Moderate to High High 50–100 years
Presettling Basin Low to Moderate Moderate
Proprietary Presettling Devices Moderate Moderate 50–100 years
Bioretention Moderate Moderate 5–20 years
Sources: Adapted from Young et al. (1996); Claytor and Schueler (1996); U.S. EPA (1993); and others.
[1] Assumes regular maintenance, occasional removal of accumulated materials, and removal of any clogged media.
[2] Estimated based on best professional judgment.

April 2019
5-3.7.1 General Maintenance Requirements
Design with maintenance in mind. Maintenance is crucial to performance of runoff treatment

and flow control BMPs; therefore, the PEO must build provisions to facilitate maintenance
operations into the project when the BMP is installed. The PEO must ensure maintenance is a
basic consideration in design and in determination of cost. Include maintenance personnel early
and throughout the design process. During discussions with maintenance personnel, describe
the maintenance procedures that will need to be performed on the BMP. Obtain maintenance
review and concurrence and document in the Hydraulic Report. Use the Hydraulic Report
Checklist on the WSDOT HQ Hydraulics website to document discussions, reviews, and
concurrence by maintenance of the final design. This will help ensure future maintenance work
and potential access needs are clearly understood.
General Maintenance Access Requirements

Access Roads
 Maximum grade for access roads will vary depending on what type of vehicle the local
area maintenance office uses. Contact the local area maintenance office to discuss this
issue.
 Make sure the outside turning radius is a minimum of 48 feet.
 Ensure access roads are 15 feet wide on curves and 12 feet wide (minimum) on
straight sections.
 Construct access roads with an asphalt or gravel surface or with modular grid
pavement. Make sure all surfaces conform to the WSDOT Standard Specifications
for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Standard Specifications) and to
manufacturer's specifications if the surfacing material is a vendor product.
 Provide a paved apron where access roads connect to paved public roadways.

April 2019
 If the access road dead ends, provide an appropriate cul-de-sac or dead-end turn-
around for maintenance vehicles.
 Locate fence gates only on straight sections of road.
 If a fence is required, limit access with a double-posted gate or with bollards—that is,
two fixed bollards on each side of the access road and two removable bollards located
equally between the fixed bollards. (See the Design Manual for guidelines on fencing
requirements).
 Locate the fence gate so there is an adequate area in front of the gate to park a
vehicle, out of traffic, while the gate is being opened. Size the parking area based
on the largest vehicle that will be needed to perform BMP maintenance.
Other
 To facilitate mowing, ensure side slopes for earthen/grass embankments do not
exceed 3H:1V. If side slopes are greater than 3H:1V, consult with local area
maintenance personnel to ensure tall grass does not restrict site access or pose
other issues. The PEO may need to plant steep embankments with low-maintenance,
low-growing ground cover.
 Ensure BMPs that require removal of sediment have a fixed vertical sediment depth
marker installed in the structure to measure sediment deposition over time. Consult
with the local area maintenance office regarding the design and use of this marker.
Swales
Access Roads
 Provide an access road to the head of a swale if sediment loading is anticipated that is
significant enough to require equipment to clean it out. Otherwise, provide a pullout
close to the head of the swale to allow inspection, cleaning, and mowing. Check with
the local maintenance area to determine equipment and access needs.
Vaults/Tanks/Catch Basins/Manholes
Access Roads
 Locate vaults and tanks out of the roadway prism whenever possible. In most areas,
closure of traffic lanes to clean vaults or tanks is not allowed during daylight hours.
Maintenance at night involves additional risk and requires worksite lighting and
possibly noise restrictions. The use of vaults and tanks requires the approval of the
Maintenance Area Superintendent. See Category I BMPs in Section 5.3.6.1.
 Provide access roads to the stormwater structure access panel if applicable, as well
as to the inlet and outlet control structure and at least one access point per cell.
 Set manhole and catch basin lids within or at the edge of the access road and at least
3 feet from a property line. Make sure manhole and catch basin lids for control
structures are locking and rim elevations match proposed finish grade.

April 2019
 Ensure the Vactor truck can park directly adjacent to the stormwater structure. Within
6 feet of the truck, the boom has swing-and-lift capability; however, for most vaults,
the operator needs to be able to center the boom directly over the suction point.
 For deep vaults, the operator typically starts at one end and moves the Vactor
truck along the vault to clean it from end to end. The deeper the suction tubes,
the harder it becomes to drag the boom around, so it must be centered directly
above the crew person working down in the stormwater structure.
 The PEO may need to provide right of way for vault and tank maintenance. It is
recommended that any tract not abutting WSDOT right of way have a 15- to 20 foot-wide
extension of the tract to an acceptable access location. The PEO must make sure enough
room is designed around all underground vaults and tanks to provide space for necessary
support equipment, including holding tanks, towed pumps, and equipment for confined-
space entry. Consult with the local area maintenance office on access needs for support
equipment.
Openings
 Provide access over the inlet pipe, over the outlet structure, and to each cell.
 Position access openings a maximum of 50 feet from any location within the vault
or tank. The PEO may need additional access points on large vaults and tanks.
 If more than one V 4 is provided in the vault floor, provide access to each V.
 For vaults with greater than 1,250 square feet of floor area, provide a 5- by 10-foot
removable panel (instead of a standard frame, grate, and solid cover) over the inlet
pipe.
 Ensure removable panels over vaults are at grade, have stainless steel lifting eyes,
and weigh no more than 5 tons per panel.
 Ensure vaults with widths of 10 feet or less have removable lids.
 For vaults under roadways, locate the removable panel outside the travel lanes.
Alternatively, the PEO may provide multiple standard locking manhole covers.
 Ensure all access openings, except those covered by removable panels, have round
solid locking lids or 3-foot-square locking diamond plate covers.
 Ensure tank access openings have round, solid locking lids (usually ½- to ⅝-inch-
diameter Allen-head cap screws).
 For tanks, the PEO may use riser-type manholes constructed of 36-inch-minimum-
diameter corrugated metal pipe of the same gage as the tank material for access
along the length of the tank and at the upstream terminus of the tank in a backup
system. The top slab is separated (1-inch-minimum-gap) from the top of the riser
to allow for deflections from vehicle loadings without damaging the riser tank.
4
See BMP RT.19 in the Category 1 BMPs (www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/FAQ.htm)
April 2019
Entry
 Provide ladders and handholds only at the outlet pipe and inlet pipe, and as needed
to meet Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) confined-space
requirements.
 Ensure stormwater structures comply with WISHA confined-space requirements,
which include clearly marking entrances to confined-space areas. The PEO may do this
by hanging a removable sign in the access riser, just under the access lid.
 If ladders are greater than 20 feet long, provide fall protection that meets WISHA
requirements.
 Provide ventilation pipes—minimum 12-inch-diameter or equivalent—in all four
corners of vaults and tanks to allow for artificial ventilation for maintenance
personnel.
 For vaults with manhole access at 12-foot intervals or with removable panels over
the entire vault, the PEO need not provide corner ventilation pipes as specified above.
 Provide internal structural walls of large vaults with openings sufficient for
maintenance access between cells. When applicable, size the openings and
situate to allow access to the V in the vault floor.
 Ensure the minimum internal height is 7 feet from the highest point of the vault
floor (not sump), and the minimum width is 4 feet. The minimum internal height
requirement may not be applicable for any areas covered by removable panels.
Other Access Issues
 Ensure all vaults and tanks have a bypass or valve to take the BMP off-line.
 Note that the gravity drain criteria for ponds (see below) apply to wet vaults and
combined wet/detention vaults.
 For maintenance access, make sure the maximum depth from finished grade to the
bottom of the vault or tank is 20 feet or less. Most Vactor trucks become inefficient
below this depth. Contact the local area maintenance office to discuss operating
depths of the equipment for the area.
Ponds
Access Roads
 Provide one or more access roads to the outlet control structure and other drainage
structures associated with the pond (such as inlet or bypass structures) to allow for
inspection and maintenance.
 Provide an access roadway for removal of sediment with a trackhoe and truck. Ensure
the ramp extends to the pond bottom if the pond bottom area is greater than 1,500
square feet (measured without the ramp), and ends at an elevation 4 feet above the
pond bottom if the pond bottom is less than 1,500 square feet (measured without
the ramp).

April 2019
 At large, deep ponds, make sure there is truck access to the pond bottom via an access
ramp so that excavated sediment and other material can be loaded into a truck in the
pond bottom. At small, deep ponds, the truck can remain on the ramp for loading. At
small, shallow ponds, a ramp to the bottom may not be required if the trackhoe can
load a truck parked at the pond edge or on the internal berm of a detention pond
(trackhoes can negotiate interior pond side slopes). These requirements may change
based on discussion with the local area maintenance office regarding the type of
vehicle typically used for that area.
 Ensure access ramps are a minimum of 3H:1V.
Other Access Issues
 Ensure wet ponds, constructed wetlands, and other stormwater structures with high
base flows have a bypass or valve to take the BMP off-line.
 For BMPs with multiple cells where the first one or two cells are meant for settling of
solids (for example infiltration ponds, wet ponds, combined wet/detention ponds, wet
vaults, combined wet/ detention vaults, constructed stormwater treatment wetlands,
and combined stormwater treatment wetlands/detention ponds), the PEO must
provide and install gravity drains to help facilitate maintenance. (See each BMP
description for the number of gravity drains needed for each BMP.)
Intent: It is anticipated that, in most cases, sediment removal will be needed only
for the first cell. The gravity drain is intended to allow water to drain from the first cell
to the second cell when the first cell needs to be emptied for cleaning. If the second cell
cannot be drained due to elevation differences or backflow potential, the first cell’s
gravity drain should discharge to a separate conveyance system.
 Ensure the gravity drain is at least 8 inches in diameter.
 Place the gravity drain at the height of the sediment storage for the first cell. For the
second cell of infiltration ponds, wet ponds, combined wet/detention ponds,
constructed stormwater treatment wetlands, and constructed stormwater treatment
wetland/detention ponds, make sure the gravity drain is at least 6 inches above the
pond bottom.
 Provide a gravity drain, controlled by a shut-off valve, that can dewater the cell to
the elevation listed in each BMP within 24 hours of initial opening. Use of a shear
gate is allowed only at the inlet end of a pipe located within an approved structure.
Intent: Shear gates often leak if water pressure pushes on the side of the gate opposite
the seal. The gate should be situated so that water pressure pushes toward the seal.
 If placed within a dividing berm or baffle, make sure the gravity drain invert is at least
6 inches below the top elevation of the dividing berm or baffle.
Intent: Highly sediment-laden water will be less likely to be released from the pond
when it is drained for maintenance.
 Provide operational access to the valve at the finished ground surface.

April 2019
 Ensure the shut-off valve location is accessible and well-marked, with 1 foot of
paving placed around the box. Ensure it is also protected from damage and
unauthorized operation.
 Clearly label the shut-off valve casing showing the closed position (normal operation)
and open position (dewatering position). The primary purpose of the gravity drain is
to provide maintenance to each cell.
 A valve box is allowed to a maximum depth of 5 feet without an access manhole. If the
valve box is over 5 feet deep, provide an access manhole or vault.
 Specify that all metal parts must be corrosion-resistant. Do not use galvanized
materials unless unavoidable.
Intent: Galvanized metal contributes zinc to stormwater, sometimes in very high
concentrations.
5-4 BMP Design Criteria

Note: Follow the BMP selection process in Section 5-3 before selecting a BMP.
The stormwater management methods in this section have been categorized in order of
preferred use and grouped according to similar composition and function. Each BMP has
an associated number to distinguish it from other BMPs with similar names. The numbering
convention represents the following classifications:
 RT.XX – Runoff Treatment BMPs
 FC.XX – Flow Control BMPs
 IN.XX – Infiltration BMPs
 CO.XX – Combination BMPs
5-4.1 Runoff Treatment Methods

The primary function of the BMPs listed in this section is to meet Minimum Requirement 5
(Runoff Treatment) in Section 3-2.5.

Some infiltration BMPs (IN.01, Bioinfiltration Pond, IN.02, Infiltration Pond, IN.03, Infiltration
Trench, and IN.04, Infiltration Vault) can provide both runoff treatment and flow control
functions. These BMPs are discussed in detail in Section 5-4.2.1. (See the Site Suitability
Criteria in Section 4-5.1 for additional requirements.)

Dispersion BMPs (FC.01, Natural Dispersion, and FC.02, Engineered Dispersion) provide both
runoff treatment and flow control functions. These BMPs are discussed in detail in Section
5-4.2.2.

April 2019
5-4.1.3 Biofiltration BMPs

RT.02 – Vegetated Filter Strip

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Vegetated filter strips are land areas of planted vegetation and amended soils situated between
the pavement surface and a surface water collection system, pond, wetland, stream, or river.
(See Figure 5-7 for an illustration of a typical vegetated filter strip.) The term buffer strip is
sometimes used interchangeably with vegetated filter strip; however, in this manual, buffer
strip refers to an area of natural indigenous vegetation that can be enhanced or preserved as
part of a riparian buffer or stormwater dispersion system.
Vegetated filter strips accept overland sheet flow runoff from adjacent impervious areas. They
rely on their flat cross slope and dense vegetation to maintain sheet flows. Their primary
purpose is to remove sediments and other pollutants coming directly off the pavement.
Vegetated filter strips function by slowing runoff velocities, trapping sediment and other
pollutants, and providing some infiltration and biologic uptake.
The design approach for vegetated filter strips involves site design techniques to maintain
prescribed maximum sheet flow distances, as well as to ensure adequate temporary storage,
so that the design storm runoff is treated. There is limited ponding or storage associated with
vegetated filter strips unless soil amendments and subsurface storage are incorporated into
the design to reduce runoff volumes and peak discharges.
The PEO can also use vegetated filter strips as a pretreatment BMP in conjunction with
bioretention, biofiltration, media filtration, or infiltration BMPs. The sediment and particulate
pollutant load that could reach the primary BMP is reduced by the pretreatment, which in turn
reduces maintenance costs and enhances the pollutant-removal capabilities of the primary
BMP.
There are three methods described in this section for designing vegetated filter strips: basic
vegetated filter strips, compost-amended vegetated filter strips (CAVFS), and narrow area
vegetated filter strips. The narrow area vegetated filter strip is the simplest method to design;
however, its use is limited to impervious flow paths less than 30 feet. If space is available to use
the basic vegetated filter strip design or the CAVFS, use either of the two designs in preference
to the narrow area vegetated filter strip. For flow paths greater than 30 feet, follow the design
method for the basic vegetated filter strip or the CAVFS.
The basic vegetated filter strip is a compacted roadside embankment that is subsequently
hydroseeded. The CAVFS is a variation of the basic vegetated filter strip that adds soil
amendments to the roadside embankment. The soil amendments improve infiltration
characteristics, increase surface roughness, and improve plant sustainability.

April 2019
Figure 5-7 Typical vegetated filter strip.

The CAVFS design incorporates compost into the native soils per the criteria in Section 5-4.3.2.
The CAVFS bed should have a final organic content of 5% for grass and for shrub areas. Once
permanent vegetation is established, the advantages of the CAVFS are higher surface
roughness; greater retention and infiltration capacity; improved removal of soluble cationic
contaminants through sorption; improved overall vegetative health; and a reduction of invasive
weeds. Compost-amended systems have somewhat higher construction costs due to more
expensive materials, but require less land area for runoff treatment, which can reduce overall
costs.

April 2019
Applications, Limitations, and LID Feasibility

Use vegetated filter strips (narrow area and basic) to meet basic runoff treatment objectives
(see Table 3-1) or as part of a treatment train to provide additional removal of phosphorus
or dissolved metals. (See Tables 4.1 and 4.2 at the following web link on Category 1 BMPs:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Hydraulics/FAQ.htm.)
Use CAVFS to meet basic runoff treatment and enhanced runoff treatment objectives, and oil
control in eastern Washington only.
Applications
 Vegetated filter strips can be effective in reducing sediments and the pollutants
associated with sediments such as phosphorus, pesticides, or insoluble metallic salts.
 Because they do not pond water on the surface for long periods, vegetated filter strips
help maintain the temperature norms of the water and deter the creation of habitat
for disease vectors such as mosquitoes.
 In less urbanized areas, vegetated filter strips can generally be located on existing
roadside embankments, reducing the need for additional right of way acquisitions.
 Designs can be modified to reduce runoff volumes and peak flows when needed or
desired to reduce right of way acquisitions.
Limitations
 If sheet flow cannot be maintained, vegetated filter strips will not be effective.
 Vegetated filter strips are generally not suitable for steep slopes or large impervious
areas that can generate high-velocity runoff.
 Use of vegetated filter strips can be impracticable in watersheds where open land
is scarce or expensive.
 Improper grading can render this BMP ineffective.
 Vegetated filter strips should be constructed outside the natural stream buffer area
whenever possible to maintain a more natural buffer along the streambank.
 Design methodology for sizing CAVFS in western Washington is different than the
design methodology for sizing basic vegetated filter strips in western Washington.
 Design methodology for sizing CAVFS in eastern Washington is identical to the design
methodology for sizing basic vegetated filter strips in eastern Washington.
 CAVFS should not be installed in areas that have a TMDL for phosphorous.

April 2019
LID Feasibility
The following criteria describe conditions that make CAVFS infeasible to meet the LID
requirement. Additional general LID feasibility criteria that apply to all other LID-type BMPs
can be found in Section 4-5.2, along with the site suitability criteria for infiltration design in
Section 4-5.1. The PEO may still use the CAVFS to meet the runoff treatment requirement even
if site suitability for infiltration is not met (Minimum Requirement 5). Citation of any of the
following infeasibility criteria must be based on an evaluation of site-specific conditions, must
be documented using the LID feasibility checklist, and should be included in the project’s
Hydraulic Report, along with any applicable written recommendations from an appropriate
licensed professional (e.g., engineer, geologist, hydrogeologist):
 Check to see if the site can be reasonably designed to locate CAVFS on slopes less than
or equal to 25%.
 Check the CAVFS LID Calculator to determine if there is an adequate amount of side
slope to install a CAVFS.
Design Flow Elements

Flows to Be Treated
Design vegetated filter strips to treat the runoff treatment flow rate discussed in Section 3-2.5
under Minimum Requirement 5 and the guidelines and criteria provided in this section.
Hydrologic methods are presented in Sections 4-3 and 4-4.
Design CAVFS to provide the runoff treatment flow rate discussed in Design Method (below).
Structural Design Considerations

Geometry
Design Criteria and Specifications
Following are the key design elements of vegetated filter strip systems.
Drainage Area Limitations
 Vegetated filter strips are used to treat small drainage areas. Flow must enter the
vegetated filter strip as sheet flow spread out over the length (long dimension
perpendicular to flow) of the strip, generally no deeper than 1 inch. For basic
vegetated filter strips and CAVFS, the greatest flow path from the contributing
area delivering sheet flow to the vegetated filter strip should not exceed 150 feet.
For the narrow area vegetated filter strip, the maximum contributing flow path
should not exceed 30 feet.
 The resultant slope from the contributing drainage should be less than or equal
to 9.4%, calculated using Equation 29 5 in Section 5-4.2.2.
5
“Eastern Washington Steep Slope Research for Management of Highway Stormwater,” WARD 77.1, Research
Report, May 2011.
April 2019
Vegetated Filter Strip Geometry

The following are applicable for basic vegetated filter strips in eastern and western Washington
and CAVFS in eastern Washington.
 Ensure vegetated filter strips provide a minimum residence time of 9 minutes for full
water quality treatment in eastern Washington. In western Washington, provide a
flow rate adjustment (described below) to use the 9-minute criterion.
 Use vegetated filter strips for pretreatment to another water quality BMP. Wherever
a basic vegetated filter strip or CAVFS system cannot fit within the available space, the
PEO can use a narrow area vegetated filter strip system solely as a pretreatment
device. Make sure the narrow area design has a minimum width of 4 feet and takes
advantage of all available space.
 Design CAVFS and basic vegetated filter strips for lateral slopes (along the direction
of flow) between 2% and 33%. 6 Steeper slopes encourage the development of
concentrated flow; flatter slopes encourage standing water. Do not use vegetated
filter strips on soils that cannot sustain a dense grass cover with high flow retardance.
 Note that the minimum width of the vegetated filter strip is generally dictated by the
design method.
 Ensure both the top and toe of the slope are as flat as possible to encourage sheet
flow and prevent erosion.
 The Manning’s n used in the vegetated filter strip design calculations depends on the
type of soil amendment and vegetation conditions used in the construction of the
vegetated filter strip (see Table 5-2).
 When the runoff treatment peak flow rate Qwq has been established, the PEO can
estimate the design flow velocity using Manning’s equation to calculate the width of
the vegetated filter strip parallel to the direction of flow.
 In areas where enhanced treatment is required, consider using a CAVFS or a media
filter drain (see BMP RT.07). The media filter drain will usually require less treatment
area to achieve the water quality treatment objectives.
The geometry guidelines above are applicable for CAVFS in western Washington except for
the following clarification:
 CAVFS design in western Washington does not have a residence time component or
Manning’s “n” component.
6
Report, May 2011.
April 2019
Table 5-2 Surface roughness/Manning’s n for vegetated filter strip design calculations.
Option Soil and Vegetation Conditions Manning’s n

1 VFS fully compacted and hydroseeded 0.20
2 VFS compaction minimized and soils amended, hydroseeded 0.35
CAVFS compaction minimized; soils amended to a minimum 5% organic content (see
3 Section 5-4.3.2); hydroseeded; grass maintained at 95% density and 4-inch length via 0.40*
mowing; periodic reseeding; possible landscaping with shrubs
CAVFS compaction minimized, soils amended to a minimum 5% organic content (see
4 Section 5-4.3.2), top-dressed with ≥ 3 inches compost or mulch (seeded or 0.55*
landscaped)
*Values estimated using the SCS TR-55 Peak Discharge and Runoff Calculator: www.lmnoeng.com/hydrology/hydrology.htm. This
tool lists the Manning’s n values for woods: light underbrush at 0.4, and woods: dense underbrush at 0.8. The intent of Option 3 is
to amend the soils so that they have surface roughness characteristics equivalent to forested conditions with light underbrush.
Option 4 adds a 3-inch top dressing of compost or mulch to simulate a thick forest duff layer, which warrants a higher Manning’s
n, estimated at 0.55.
Water Depth and Velocity

 The maximum depth of sheet flow through a vegetated filter strip for the runoff
treatment design flow rate is 1.0 inch.
 The maximum flow velocity for the runoff treatment design flow velocity is 0.5 feet
per second.
Maintain Sheet Flow Conditions
 Maintain sheet flow conditions from the pavement into the vegetated filter strip.
A no-vegetation zone may help establish and maintain this condition.
 In areas where it may be difficult to maintain sheet flow conditions for embankment
and VFS slopes steeper than 15%, use aggregate or gravel level spreaders. 7 Place them
between the pavement surface and the vegetated filter strip. Make sure the aggregate
meets the specifications for crushed surfacing base course listed in Section 9-03.9(3)
of the Standard Specifications or other aggregate providing the equivalent
functionality.
 If there are concerns that water percolated within the aggregate flow spreader may
exfiltrate into the highway prism, use impervious geotextiles to line the bottom of the
aggregate layer.
Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip (CAVFS) for Western Washington

Design Method
The design for CAVFS in western Washington is an iterative process in the stormwater model
MGSFlood. This allows MGSFlood to adequately analyze the infiltrative capacity of both the
compost-amended layer and the underlying soils to achieve the 91% volume treatment criteria.
Please note that because the CAVFS has infiltration as a unit function, the CAVFS design may
7
Report, May 2011.
April 2019
require significant upfront geotechnical investigation and time to establish the infiltration
rates, Ksat, and gradients for the CAVFS soil and underlying soil layers.
Figure 5-8 CAVFS detail in MGSFlood.

A flow-through CAVFS is simulated using Darcy’s Equation (as shown in Figure 5-8), where Kc
is the saturated hydraulic conductivity. Note that the width dimension corresponds to the
CAVFS width along the slope. Account for infiltration using a constant infiltration rate into the
underlying soils. During large storms, the voids in the CAVFS may become full (the CAVFS is
saturated), in which case runoff is simulated as overflow down the surface of the CAVFS. List
the runoff volume filtered by the CAVFS, the volume infiltrated, and the volume flowing over
the CAVFS surface in the project report.
The PEO may (optionally) apply precipitation and evapotranspiration to the CAVFS. If the PEO
applies precipitation and evapotranspiration in the CAVFS link, do not include the area of the
CAVFS in the Subbasin Area input.
1. See Section 4D-4.5 in Appendix 4D to determine the Ksat for the underlying soils of a CAVFS.
2. See Section 4D-8 in Appendix 4D to determine the CAVFS Ksat.
Note: The ASTM method described in Section 4D-8 and Figure 4D-6 in Appendix 4D provides
an infiltration rate. Assuming a hydraulic gradient of one, the infiltration rate is the same as
the hydraulic conductivity.
3. Modeling steps for CAVFS.
Using MGSFlood, set the dimensions of the CAVFS as follows under the Network Tab:
n Select the Link type: CAVFS
CAVFS Depth d (ft): This is a constant depth of 1 foot for all CAVFS designs. See Section
5-4.3.2 for the CAVFS presumptive mix or custom mix.
CAVFS Porosity (% by Volume): The default value is 30%, but must be verified or
reestablished by the WSDOT Materials Lab or a licensed geotechnical engineer for
the particular site and particular installation.

April 2019
CAVFS Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr): The default value is 1 in/hr and must be
verified or reestablished by the WSDOT Materials Lab or a licensed geotechnical
engineer for the particular site and particular installation and analyzed using the
guidance in Section 4D-8 in Appendix 4D.
CAVFS Length (ft): The length parallel to the roadway.
CAVFS Width (ft): The width perpendicular to the roadway. This is usually the
parameter being solved for.
Underlying Soil Infiltration Rate (in/hr): Refer to Step 1.
CAVFS Slope Z: The horizontal slope of the roadway embankment is typically 4:1 or
flatter if not protected by barrier or guardrail. If placing a CAVFS on a steeper
slope, consult the WSDOT Materials Lab and WSDOT Landscape Architect for
possible issues with sloughing and stability and possible options to allow for
steeper slopes.
Gravel Spreader Width (ft): The width perpendicular to the roadway.
Gravel Porosity (% by Volume): The typical value for gravel porosity is 30.
Gravel Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr): The default value is 2 in/hr and must be
verified or reestablished by the WSDOT Materials Lab or a licensed geotechnical
engineer for the particular site and particular installation.
4. Determine that the volume of runoff infiltrated and filtered is 91% or greater than the total
runoff volume.
 MGSFlood will output Postdeveloped CAVFS Treatment Statistics in the MGSFlood
Project Report file. The report file will give the percent treated for the structure
defined in Step 3. Verify that this number is equal to or greater than 91%.
5. Flow Control Compliance.
 After a successful runoff treatment design (Steps 1–4 above), the PEO may be able
to widen the CAVFS to try to meet the flow duration standard if the particular
TDA is required to provide flow control. Otherwise, link a flow control structure
downstream of the CAVFS to attenuate the resultant runoff and meet the flow
duration standard. Contact the RHE for questions regarding flow control modeling.
For an example problem, refer to MGSFlood training examples linked in Appendix
4A.

April 2019
Vegetated Filter Strip (eastern and western Washington basic vegetated filter
strip and eastern Washington CAVFS)
Design Method
1. Determine the runoff treatment design flow (Qwq). In western Washington, the on-line
design flow for runoff treatment is the flow rate derived from a continuous model (such as
MGSFlood or WWHM) that calculates the flow rate from the drainage basin below which
91% of the average annual runoff volume occurs. In eastern Washington, the on-line design
flow rate is determined based on the peak 5-minute interval for the short-duration design
storm, which is the 6 month, 3-hour event. (See Chapter 4 for criteria and hydrologic
methods.)
Western Washington flow rate adjustment. In western Washington, design flow rates
are calculated using a continuous simulation model. Most of the performance research
on vegetated filter strips and biofiltration BMPs has been conducted on vegetated filter
strips that used event-based designs. The 91st percentile flow event (as calculated by the
continuous model) tends to be less than the estimated 6-month, 24-hour event flow rate
in most cases.
The ratio between the 91st percentile flow event and the estimated 6-month, 24-hour flow
rate varies with location and percent of impervious area in the modeled drainage basin.
When designing vegetated filter strips in western Washington, multiply the on-line water
quality design flow rate by the coefficient k 8 given below to apply the 9-minute residence
time criterion.
Western Washington Design Flow Coefficient for Biofilters
k = 1.41 (P72%, 2-yr.) – 0.052 (E-1)
where: P72%, 2-yr = 72% of the 2-year, 24-hour precipitation depth (in.)
Note: Estimate the 6-month, 24-hour precipitation event at 72% of the 2-year, 24-hour
precipitation event if 6-month, 24-hour precipitation data are not available.
In eastern Washington, no design flow rate adjustment is needed, since the 6-month,
24-hour flow rate is calculated directly using SBUH-based models such as StormShed.
The vegetated filter strip design flow rate then becomes:
Qvfs = kQwq (E-2)
8
Derived by calculating the linear regression of the ratios of the 91st percentile flow event at 15-minute intervals
(determined by MGSFlood) vs. 72% of the 2-year, 24-hour event (determined by the rational method) at each of the
major continuously-operating rain gages in western Washington.
April 2019
2. Calculate the design flow depth at Qvfs. Calculate the design flow depth based on the length
of the vegetated filter strip (same as the length of the pavement edge contributing runoff to
the vegetated filter strip) and the lateral slope of the vegetated filter strip parallel to the
direction of flow. Calculate design flow depth using a form of Manning’s equation:
1.49 5 3 1 2
Qvfs = Ly s (E-3)
n
where: Qvfs = vegetated filter strip design flow rate (cfs)

n = Manning’s roughness coefficient. Manning’s n can be adjusted
by specifying soil and vegetation conditions at the project site,
as specified in Table 5-2.
y = design flow depth (ft), also assumed to be the hydraulic radius =
1.0 inch maximum = 0.083 feet
L = length of vegetated filter strip parallel to pavement edge (ft)
s = slope of vegetated filter strip parallel to direction of flow (ft/ft).
Vegetated filter strip slopes should be greater than 2% and less
than 15%, or ≤33% with a gravel level spreader. Vegetated filter
strip slopes should be made as shallow as is feasible by site
constraints. Gently sloping vegetated filter strips can produce
the required residence time for runoff treatment using less space
than steeper vegetated filter strips.
Rearranging Equation 3 to solve for y yields:
3
 nQvfs  5
y= 1 
(E-4)
1.49 Ls 2 
If the calculated depth y is greater than 1 inch, either adjust the vegetated filter strip
geometry or use other runoff treatment BMPs.
3. Calculate the design flow velocity passing through the vegetated filter strip at the
vegetated filter strip design flow rate. The design flow velocity (VWQ) is based on the
vegetated filter strip design flow rate, the length of the vegetated filter strip, and the
calculated design flow depth from Step 2:
Qvfs
VWQ = (E-5)
Ly
where: VWQ = design flow velocity (ft/sec)

y = design flow depth (ft, from Equation 4)

April 2019
4. Calculate the vegetated filter strip width. The width of the vegetated filter strip
is determined by the residence time of the flow through the vegetated filter strip.
A 9-minute (540-second) residence time is used to calculate the vegetated filter
strip width:
𝑊𝑊 = 𝑇𝑇 × 𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = 540 × 𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 (E-6)
where: W = vegetated filter strip width (ft)

T = time (sec)
VWQ = design flow velocity (ft/sec, from Equation 5)
A minimum width of 8 feet is recommended in order to ensure the long-term effectiveness
of the vegetated filter strip will occur.
Narrow Area Vegetated Filter Strip

As previously mentioned, narrow area vegetated filter strips are limited to impervious flow
paths less than 30 feet. For flow paths greater than 30 feet, follow the basic vegetated filter
strip guidelines. The sizing of a narrow area vegetated filter strip is based on the width of the
roadway surface parallel to the flow path of the vegetated filter strip and the lateral slope of
the vegetated filter strip.
1. Determine the width of the roadway surface parallel to the flow path draining to the
narrow area vegetated filter strip. Determine the width of the roadway surface parallel to
the flow path from the upstream to the downstream edge of the impervious area draining
to the vegetated filter strip. This is the same as the width of the paved area.
2. Determine the average lateral slope of the narrow area vegetated filter strip. Calculate
the lateral slope of the vegetated filter strip (parallel to the flow path), averaged over the
total length of the vegetated filter strip. If the slope is less than 2%, use 2% for sizing
purposes. The maximum lateral slope allowed is 15%. Where a gravel level spreader is
located between the highway and the VFS, the maximum lateral slope allowed is 33%. For
sizing purposes, the PEO should use the 20% narrow area VFS slope limit (X-axis) in Figure 5-
9, even though the narrow area VFS may be constructed on a slope up to 33%.
3. Determine the required width of the narrow area vegetated filter strip. Use Figure 5-9 to
size the vegetated filter strip. Locate the width of the impervious surface parallel with the
flow path on one of the curves; interpolate between curves as necessary. Next, move along
the curve to the point where the design lateral slope of the vegetated filter strip is directly
below. Read the vegetated filter strip width to the left on the y-axis. Design the vegetated
filter strip to provide this minimum width “W” along the entire stretch of pavement
draining to it.

April 2019
Figure 5-9 Narrow area vegetated filter strip design graph.
Site Design Elements

Landscaping (Planting Considerations) and Vegetation Establishment
Plant vegetated filter strips with grass that can withstand relatively high-velocity flows as
well as wet and dry periods. The PEO may also incorporate native vegetation into filter strips,
such as small shrubs to make the system more effective in treating runoff and providing root
penetration into subsoils, thereby enhancing infiltration. Consult with the Region Landscape
Architect or the HQ Roadside and Site Development Section for a selection of grasses and
plants suitable for the project site.
Soil Amendments
Refer to Section 5-4.3.2, Soil Amendments for CAVFS.
Maintenance Access Roads (Access Requirements)
Provide access at the upper edge of all vegetated filter strips to enable maintenance of the
gravel flow spreader and permit lawnmower entry to the vegetated filter strip. (See Section
5-3.7.1 for any other applicable requirement.)
Signage
Refer to Section 5-5.3 for signing requirements.

April 2019
RT.04 – Biofiltration Swale

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Biofiltration swales are vegetation-lined channels designed to remove suspended solids from
stormwater. The shallow, concentrated flow within these systems allows for the filtration of
stormwater by plant stems and leaves. Biological uptake, biotransformation, sorption, and ion
exchange are potential secondary pollutant-removal processes (see Figures 5-10 and 5-11).
Biofiltration swales are approved for basic runoff treatment. Compost-amended biofiltration
swales (CABS) are approved for basic and enhanced runoff treatment. WSDOT has only one
bioswale design procedure for both eastern and western Washington.
Applications
 Biofiltration swales and CABS have the flexibility to be located at the end of a
stormwater collection system.
 In less urbanized areas, the PEO can generally locate biofiltration swales and CABS at
the bottom of existing roadside embankments, which reduces the need for additional
right of way acquisitions.
 The PEO should regard roadside ditches as significant potential biofiltration sites, and
they should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible.
Limitations
 Do not install CABS in areas that have a TMDL for phosphorous.
LID Feasibility
The LID feasibility criteria described in Section 4-5.2 list conditions that make continuous inflow
CABS (CICABS) infeasible to meet the LID requirement. Even if the CICABS is deemed infeasible
to meet the LID requirement, the PEO may still use the CICABS to meet the runoff treatment
requirement (Minimum Requirement 5). Citation of any of the following infeasibility criteria
must be based on an evaluation of site-specific conditions and must be documented using the
LID feasibility checklist and should be included in the project’s Hydraulic Report, along with any
geologist, hydrogeologist).

Flows to Be Treated
Design biofiltration swales to treat the biofiltration design flow rate Qbiofil. The PEO shall send
Qbiofil to the biofiltration swale for treatment. Hydrologic methods are presented in Sections 4-3
and 4-4.

April 2019

Level Spreaders and Energy Dissipaters
Install level spreaders at the head of the biofiltration swale and every 50 feet of swale length
if the swale is 6 feet or greater in bottom width. Install level spreaders at the head of the
biofiltration swale if a swale divider is used. Include sediment cleanouts at the head of the
swale as needed (see Section 5-4.3.5 for level spreader options).
Construct level spreaders and swale dividers of plastic boards, concrete, or other materials that
will not leach contaminants harmful to aquatic life. Stake level spreaders, other than gravel
energy dissipaters, with nongalvanized metal pins at 4 feet on center minimum. (See Figure
5-16 for more information.)
Use energy dissipaters for swales on longitudinal slopes exceeding 2.5%. Energy dissipaters may
take the place of level spreaders if they are designed and installed to maintain level flow in the
swale.
Design Method
WSDOT has a bioswale design spreadsheet available on the HRM website that is required on
WSDOT projects. The spreadsheet uses the following procedure for both eastern and western
Washington.
Sizing Procedure
Design Steps (D)
D-1 Determine the runoff treatment design flow rate (Qwq) (see Sections 4-3.1 and 4-4.1).
D-2 Determine the biofiltration design flow rate (Qbiofil):
Qbiofil = kQwq (E-7)
For western Washington: 9

k = 1.41 (P72%, 2-yr.) – 0.052 (for on-line biofiltration swales) (E- 8)
k = 2.50 (P72%, 2-yr.) – 0.052 (for off-line biofiltration swales) (E- 9)
where: P72%, 2-yr = 72% of the 2-year, 24-hour precipitation depth (in.)
Note: If the 6-month, 24-hour precipitation depth (in.) is known for the project site,
the PEO can use that value instead of P72%, 2-yr.
For eastern Washington:
k = 1.0 (E-10)
9
The coefficient k is derived by calculating the linear regression of the ratios of the 91st percentile flow event at
15-minute intervals (determined by MGSFlood) vs. 72% of the 2-year, 24-hour event (determined by the rational
method) at each of the major continuously-operating rain gages in western Washington and applied to the design
flow rate in order to meet the 9-minute residence time criteria.
April 2019
D-3 Establish the longitudinal slope of the proposed biofiltration swale (see Table 5-4
for criteria).
D-4 Select a soil and vegetation cover suitable for the biofiltration swale (see Table 5-3).
D-5 Select the design depth of flow, y (see Table 5-4).
D-6 Set the swale cross-sectional shape as trapezoidal.
D-7 Use Manning’s equation (E-11) and first approximations relating hydraulic radius and
dimensions for the trapezoidal swale to obtain a value for the width of the
biofiltration swale:
1.49 AR 2 / 3 s 1 / 2
Qbiofil = (E-11)
n
where: Qbiofil = runoff treatment design flow rate (cfs)
A = wetted area (ft2)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = longitudinal slope of swale (ft/ft)
n = Manning’s coefficient (see Table 5-3)
To solve for the trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the swale, use the following
method:
Solve the implicit equation AR0.67 = Qbiofil n / (1.49s0.5) to determine bottom swale
width (b). Use Figure 5-18 to substitute for A and R for the trapezoidal cross-
sectional geometry. The variables Qbiofil, y, s, and n are all known values. The
equation should then contain only a single unknown (b). If the calculated value
for b is less than 2 feet, then set bottom swale width to 2 feet.
D-8 Compute A at Qbiofil by using the equations in Figure 5-18.
D-9 Compute the flow velocity at Qbiofil:
Qbiofil
V biofil = (E-12)
A
where: Vbiofil = flow velocity at Qbiofil (ft/sec)

If Vbiofil > 1.0 ft/sec, increase bottom width (b) or investigate ways to reduce Qwq and
then repeat Steps D-7, D-8, and D-9 until Vbiofil ≤ 1.0 ft/sec. A velocity greater than
1.0 ft/sec was found to flatten grasses, thus reducing filtration.
D-10 Compute the swale length, L (ft):
L = Vbiofil t (60 sec/min) (E-13)
where: t = hydraulic residence time (9 minutes for basic

biofiltration swales)

April 2019
D-11 If there is not sufficient space for the biofiltration swale, consider the following
solutions:
 Divide the site drainage to flow to multiple biofiltration swales.
 Use infiltration or dispersion upstream of the bioswale to provide lower Qbiofil.
 Alter the design depth of flow if possible (see Table 5-4).
 Reduce the developed surface area to gain space for the biofiltration swale.
 Reduce the longitudinal slope by meandering the biofiltration swale.
 Nest the biofiltration swale within or around another stormwater BMP.
Freeboard Check (FC)
The PEO must perform a freeboard check for the combination of highest expected flow and
least vegetation coverage and height. For western Washington, the highest expected flow rate
(Qconvey) is the 50-year return frequency flow using 15-minute time steps as determined by
MGSFlood or other Ecology-approved continuous simulation model. For eastern Washington,
Qconvey is the 25-year, 24-hour storm (a 10-year storm is acceptable, provided that reparative
maintenance will be performed following every 10-year event). The freeboard check is not
necessary for biofiltration swales that are located off-line from the primary conveyance and
detention system (that is, when flows in excess of Qbiofil bypass the biofiltration swale). Off-
line is the preferred configuration of biofiltration swales.
Note: Use the same units as in the biofiltration swale design steps.
FC-1 Unless runoff at rates higher than Qbiofil will bypass the biofiltration swale, perform
a freeboard check for Qconvey.
FC-2 Select the lowest possible roughness coefficient for the biofiltration swale (assume
n = 0.03).
FC-3 Again, use the implicit equation AR0.67 = Qconvey n / (1.49s0.5) (see Figure 5-18) and
with a known b, solve for depth, y. Select the lowest y that provides a solution.
FC-4 Ensure swale depth exceeds flow depth at Qconvey by a minimum of 1 foot (1-foot-
minimum freeboard).
Table 5-3 Flow resistance coefficient in basic, wet, and continuous inflow biofiltration swales.
Soil and Cover Manning's Coefficient

Grass-legume mix on compacted native soil 0.20
Grass-legume mix on lightly compacted topsoil[1] 0.22
Grass-legume mix on lightly compacted, topsoil with 3-inch medium compost 0.35
blanket[2]
[1] Specify that topsoil extends to at least an 8-inch depth per Figure 5-11.
[2] For information on compost-amended soils, refer to Section 5-4.3.2. (Note that swales do not require a mulch layer and
that compost amendments shall be a 3-inch-thick medium compost blanket over the topsoil.)

April 2019
Table 5-4 Biofiltration swale sizing criteria.
Design Basic Wet Continuous Inflow

Parameter Biofiltration Swale Biofiltration Swale Biofiltration Swale
Longitudinal slope 0.015–0.050[1] feet per foot 0.020 feet or less per Same as basic swale
foot
Maximum velocity 1 foot per second at Qbiofil Same as basic swale Same as basic swale
Maximum water depth 2 inches if swale mowed 4 inches Same as basic swale
at Qbiofil, y frequently; 4 inches if mowed
infrequently or inconsistently.
For dryland grasses in eastern
Washington, set depth to 3 inches.
Manning coefficient at See Table 5-3 Same as basic swale Same as basic swale
Qbiofil
Bottom swale width (b) 2–10 feet[2] 2–25 feet Same as basic swale
Freeboard height 1 foot for the peak conveyance Same as basic swale Same as basic swale
flow rate (Qconvey)[3]
Minimum length 100 feet Same as basic swale Same as basic swale
Maximum side slope 3H:1V Same as basic swale Same as basic swale
(for trapezoidal cross
section)[4]
[1] For slopes greater than 5%, install energy dissipaters.

[2] Multiple parallel swales can be constructed when the calculated swale bottom width exceeds 10 feet. Swales with bottom
calculated widths up to 16 feet can be divided in half using a non-erodible weather-resistant material such as plastic
lumber.
[3] See Freeboard discussion for definition of Qconvey for eastern and western Washington.
[4] From swale bed to top of water surface at Qbiofil.

April 2019
Figure 5-10 Biofiltration swale: Plan view.

April 2019
Figure 5-11 Biofiltration swale: Cross section.
Figure 5-12 Biofiltration swale: Flow spreader and concrete sump.

April 2019
Figure 5-13 Biofiltration swale: Concrete flow spreader details.
Figure 5-14 Biofiltration swale: Concrete flow spreader dimensions.

April 2019
Figure 5-15 Biofiltration swale: Divider splice details.
Figure 5-16 Biofiltration swale: Divider details.
Figure 5-17 Biofiltration swale: Divider staking details.

April 2019
Figure 5-18 Geometric elements of common cross sections.

April 2019

Groundwater
If groundwater contamination is a concern, seal the bed with either a treatment liner or a low-
permeability liner that is appropriate for site conditions. (See Section 5-4.3.3 for additional
information on these liner types.)
It is important to maximize water contact with vegetation and the soil surface. For general
purposes, select fine, close-growing grasses (or other vegetation) that can withstand prolonged
periods of wetting as well as prolonged dry periods (to minimize the need for irrigation). Plant
wet-tolerant species in the fall. Consult with the Region Landscape Architect or the HQ
Roadside and Site Development Section for grass, topsoil, and compost selection.
If possible, perform final seeding of the swale during the seeding windows specified in the
Standard Specifications. Supplemental irrigation may be required depending on seeding
and planting times. Apply seed via hydroseeder or broadcaster.
Use only sod specified by the Region Landscape Architect or the HQ Roadside and Site
Development Section. Stabilize soil areas upslope of the biofiltration swale to prevent erosion
and excessive sediment deposition.
Soil Amendments (for CABS)
Refer to Section 5-4.3.2, Soil Amendments.
Construction Criteria
Biofiltration swales should generally not receive construction-stage runoff. If they do, provide
presettling of sediments. (See Sections 5-1.1.35, Sediment Trap, and 5-1.1.36, Temporary
Sediment Pond, in the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Manual.) Evaluate such
biofilters for the need to remove sediments and restore vegetation following construction. The
maintenance of presettling basins or sumps is critical to their effectiveness as pretreatment
devices.
Do not put the biofiltration swale into operation until areas of exposed soil in the contributing
drainage catchment have been sufficiently stabilized. If possible, divert runoff (other than
necessary irrigation) during the period of vegetation establishment. Where runoff diversion is
not possible, protect graded and seeded areas with suitable erosion control measures.
Avoid over-compaction during construction.
Refer to Section 5-3.7.1 for maintenance access road requirements and other general
maintenance considerations.
Signage

April 2019
RT.05 – Wet Biofiltration Swale

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
A wet biofiltration swale is a variation of a basic biofiltration swale for use where the
longitudinal slope is slight, water tables are high, or continuous base flow is likely to result
in saturated soil conditions. Where saturation exceeds about two continuous weeks, typical
grasses die; thus, vegetation specifically adapted to saturated soil conditions is needed. This
type of vegetation in turn requires modification of several of the design parameters for the
basic biofiltration swale to remove low concentrations of pollutants such as total suspended
solids (TSS), heavy metals, nutrients, and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Applications and Limitations
Applications
Apply wet biofiltration swales where a basic biofiltration swale is desired but not allowed or
advisable because of one or more of the following conditions:
 The swale is on till soils and is downstream of a detention pond providing flow control.
 Saturated soil conditions are likely because of seeps, high groundwater, or base flows
on the site.
 Longitudinal slopes are slight (generally less than 2.0%) and ponding is likely.
Limitations
 Wet biofiltration swales are off-line and require a flow splitter.

Flows to Be Treated
Design wet biofiltration swales to treat the runoff treatment off-line flow rate discussed in
Section 3-2.5 under Minimum Requirement 5. Hydrologic methods are presented in Sections
4-3 and 4-4.

Use the same Structural Design Considerations for basic biofiltration swales (see BMP RT.04),
except for the following:
Geometry
 The PEO may increase the bottom width to 25 feet maximum, but must maintain a
length-to-width ratio of 5:1 (see Figure 5-19). No longitudinal dividing berm is needed.
Note: The minimum swale length is 100 feet.
 If longitudinal slopes are greater than 2%, the PEO must step the wet swale so that the
slope within the stepped sections averages 2% or less. Steps may be made of retaining
walls, log check dams, short riprap sections, or similar structures. Design steps to
prevent scour on the downstream side of the step.

April 2019
 Extended wet season flow adjustment. If the swale is downstream of a detention

pond providing flow control, multiply the treatment area (bottom width x length) of
the swale (as determined by the design steps D-8 and D-10 listed in BMP RT.04) by 2
and readjust the swale length or width to provide an equivalent area. Maintain a 5:1
length-to-width ratio.
Intent: The treatment area of swales following detention ponds needs to be increased
because of the differences in vegetation established in a constant flow environment. Flows
following detention are much more prolonged. These prolonged flows result in more stream-
like conditions than are typical for other wet biofilter situations. Because vegetation growing
in streams is often less dense, an increase in treatment area is needed to ensure equivalent
pollutant removal is achieved in extended flow situations.
Flow Splitters
 A flow splitter is required upstream of the wet biofiltration swale that will bypass
high flows (i.e., an off-line design) exceeding the off-line water quality flow rate. The
bypass is necessary to protect wetland vegetation from damage. Unlike grass, wetland
vegetation does not quickly regain an upright attitude after being flattened by high
flows. New growth, usually from the base of the plant and often taking several weeks,
is required for the grass to regain its upright form.
 Flow spreaders are not needed for wet biofiltration swales.
Design Method
 Use the same criteria specified for basic biofiltration swales (see BMP RT.04), except
for Step D-5. For wet biofiltration swales, the design water depth must be 4 inches
for all wetland vegetation selections.
 The freeboard check is not needed for wet biofiltration swales since they are off-line
BMPs.

Use the same Site Design Elements for basic biofiltration swales (see BMP RT.04), except for
the following:
Landscaping (Planting Considerations) and Plant Establishment
Select acceptable plants for western Washington sites from the list shown in Table 5-5. In
general, it is best to plant several species to increase the likelihood that at least some of the
selected species will find growing conditions favorable.
The PEO may apply a wetland seed mix by hydroseeding, but if coverage is poor, the PEO must
plant rootstock or nursery stock. Poor coverage is considered to be more than 30% bare area
through the upper two-thirds of the swale after four weeks.

April 2019

Access is only required at the flow splitter, inflow, and outflow of the wet biofiltration swale.
Access along the length of the wet biofiltration swale is not required since frequent mowing
and harvesting are not desirable. In addition, wetland plants are fairly resilient to sediment-
induced changes in water depth, so the need for access should be infrequent.
Additional Maintenance Considerations
Mowing of wetland vegetation is not required. However, harvesting of very dense vegetation
may be desirable in the fall after plant die-back to prevent the sloughing of excess organic
material into receiving waters. Many native Juncus species remain green throughout the
winter; therefore, fall harvesting of Juncus species is not recommended.
Signage
Figure 5-19 Wet biofiltration swale: Cross section.

April 2019
Table 5-5 Recommended plants for wet biofiltration swales in western Washington.
Common Name Scientific Name

Shortawn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis
Water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus
Spike rush Eleocharis spp.
Slough sedge* Carex obnupta
Sawbeak sedge Carex stipata
Sedge Carex spp.
Western mannagrass Glyceria occidentalis
Velvetgrass Holcus mollis
Slender rush Juncus tenuis
Watercress* Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum
Water parsley* Oenanthe sarmentosa
Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus
Small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus
*Good choice for swales with significant periods of flow, such as those
downstream of a detention facility.
Note: Cattail (Typha latifolia) is not appropriate for most wet swales because
of its very dense and clumping growth habit that prevents water from filtering
through the clump.

April 2019
RT.06 – Continuous Inflow Biofiltration Swale
Description: Variation of basic

biofiltration swale. Water enters
swale continuously along side
slope. The basic Biofiltration
design is modified by increasing
swale length to achieve an
equivalent average hydraulic time.
Geometry Limitations
Max Inlet Port Flow 10%
Longitudinal Slope 1.5- 5%
Max Water Depth 2-4"
Bed Width 2-10'
Min Length >100'
Continuous Inflow Biofiltration Swale along I-5 in Max Side Slope 3H:1V
Snohomish County
BMP Function Effective Life (Years)
 LID (CICABS)
 Flow Control
 5-20
 Runoff Treatment
 Oil Control
Capital Cost O & M Cost
 Phosphorus  Low to Moderate  Low to Moderate
 TSS - Basic
 Dissolved Metals – Enhanced (CICABS)
Additional Constraints/Requirements
 4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria (CICABS)  Soil Amendments/Compost (CICABS)
 Setback  Energy Dissipater/Level Spreader
 Landscaping/Planting  5-4.3.3 Facility Liners
 Wetland Planting and Plant Establishment  5-4.3.7 Signing
 Inlet and Outlet Spacing  Fencing
 Overflow  Presettling/Pretreatment
 Multidisciplinary Team (CICABS)  Underdrain
 WSDOT Pavement Engineer Approval  Soil Preparation (CICABS)
TMDL/303(d) – Considerations1 Maintenance Requirements

Avoid Preferred  Access Roads or Pullouts
  Fecal Coliform  Vactor Truck Access
  Phosphorus (CICABS)
 Mowing
  Nitrogen  Valve Access
Temperature  Specialized Equipment
 
  Dissolved Metals (CICABS)  Specialized Training
  Total Suspended Solids/Turbidity Further Requirements: See Sections
  Dissolved Oxygen 5-3.7.1 and 5.5.
  pH
  Oil/Grease
  PAHs
  Pesticides
1. See Table 3-1 and Section 2-4.2 for additional
guidance.

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
In situations where water enters a biofiltration swale continuously along the side slope rather
than discretely at the head, a different design approach—the continuous inflow biofiltration
swale—is needed (see Figures 5-20 and 5-21). The basic swale design is modified by increasing
swale length to achieve an equivalent average hydraulic residence time.
Applications
 Use where inflows are not concentrated or they sheet flow into the swale, such as
locations along the shoulder of a road without curbs.
 Use where frequent, small-point flows enter a swale, such as through curb inlet ports
spaced at intervals along a road or from a parking lot with frequent curb cuts.
 Note that the continuous inflow compost-amended bioswale (CICABS) is the same as
a regular continuous inflow bioswale except it has a 3-inch compost blanket over the
bioswale portion. The CICABS provides enhanced runoff treatment (dissolved metals
removal).
Limitations
 Ensure no inlet port carries more than about 10% of the flow.
 A continuous inflow swale is not appropriate where significant lateral flows (> 10% of
the flow) enter a swale at some point downstream from the head of the swale. In this
situation, new head of the swale becomes the point of confluence with the significant
lateral flow (> 10% of the flow) and the PEO must recalculate the swale width and
length using the new head of swale location to provide adequate treatment for the
increased flows. The swale is a basic biofiltration swale (see Figure 5-22).
 Do not install CICABS in areas that have a TMDL for phosphorous.
LID Feasibility
Use the same LID feasibility criteria for continuous inflow compost-amended biofiltration
swales (CICABS) shown in BMP RT.04.

Flows to Be Treated
Design continuous inflow biofiltration swales to treat the runoff treatment flow rate discussed
in Section 3-2.5 under Minimum Requirement 5. Hydrologic methods are presented in Sections
4-3 and 4-4.

April 2019
Figure 5-20 Continuous inflow biofiltration swale: Plan view.

April 2019
Figure 5-21 Continuous inflow biofiltration swale: Plan view.

April 2019
Figure 5-22 Basic biofiltration swale: Plan view.

Use the same Structural Design Considerations for basic biofiltration swales (BMP RT.04),
except for the following:
Design Method
 For the design flow Qwq as shown in Step D-1 of the basic biofiltration swale (see BMP
RT.04) criteria, include runoff from the pervious side slopes draining to the swale
along the entire swale length. Continue through to Step D7 and determine the
biofiltration swale cross-sectional area.
To determine the length of the continuous inflow bioswale, the goal is to achieve an
average residence time of 9 minutes through the swale. Assuming an even distribution
of inflow into the side of the swale, an initial hydraulic residence time of 18 minutes is
assumed for design. To account for the benefits of sheet flow through the grassy side
slopes (3H:1V or shallower and slope length >5 feet), use the following method to reduce
the 18 minutes of residence time. Replace Step D-8 of the RT.04 Biofiltration Swale design
steps with the steps below:
 D-8a – Determine the biofiltration cross sectional area.
 D-8b – Break the drainage basin of the swale into areas so that no area contributes
more than 10% of the flow. Include only those areas that discharge sheet flow to
the vegetated side slopes and biofiltration swale.

April 2019
 D-8c – Determine the velocity of flows through each vegetated side slope, Vn,ss
(ft/sec), for each of the contributing areas by completing Steps 1 through 3 of the
basic vegetated filter strip design methodology (see BMP RT.02).
 D-8d – Determine the hydraulic residence time within each vegetated side slope,
tss (sec), for each area using:
Ln,ss/Vn,ss = tn,ss (E-14)
where: Ln,ss = length of vegetated side slope of the nth swale subbasin (ft)
 D-8e – Determine the weighted mean hydraulic residence time, tmean,ss, for all flows
passing through vegetated side slopes using:
[Q1(tss,1)+Q2(tss,2)+….+Qn(tss,n)]/Qtotal,ss= tmean,ss (E-15)
where: Qn = flow rate for nth contributing area (cfs)

Qtotal,ss = total flow that passes through all the vegetated side slopes (cfs)
 D-8f – Determine the adjusted hydraulic residence time tadj (sec) using:
tmean,ss x R = tadj (E-16)
where: R = Qtotal,ss / Qbiofil

Qbiofil = total runoff treatment flow rate as determined in Step D-2
of the basic biofiltration swale (see BMP RT.04) criteria
 D-8g – The head of the swale should be upstream of the vegetated side slopes and
the swale is located along the entire toe of the contributing vegetated side slope.
Subtract tadj from 1,080 seconds (= 18 minutes) to determine tdesign.
 Continue with Design Steps D-9 to D-11 of RT.04, Biofiltration Swale. For Step D-10,
use tdesign calculated in Step D-8g above to determine the total swale length
required. The swale must be at least as long as the contributing vegetated side
slopes. Make any necessary adjustments to ensure the criteria in Table 5-4 are met.

Use the same Site Design Elements for basic biofiltration swales (see BMP RT.04), except for
the following:
For continuous inflow biofiltration swales, plant interior side slopes with grass above the
runoff treatment design elevation. A typical lawn seed mix or the biofiltration seed mixes
are acceptable.
Intent: The use of grass on interior side slopes reduces the chance of soil erosion and transfer
of pollutants from landscape areas to the biofiltration treatment area.
Signage

April 2019
RT.07 – Media Filter Drain
Description: Linear flow-through

stormwater runoff treatment device
along highway side slopes and
medians. Also has end-of-pipe
configurations.
Contributing Flow Path ≤ 150’
Embankment Slope 2%-25%
Media Filter Drain Along SR 167 in King County
BMP Function
 LID
Effective Life (Years)
 Flow Control  25
 Oil Control Capital Cost M & O Cost
 Phosphorus*
 TSS - Basic
 Low  Low to Moderate
 Dissolved Metals - Enhanced
 4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria  Soil Amendments/Compost
 Setback  Energy Dissipater/Level Spreader
 Landscaping/Planting  5-4.3.3 Facility Liners
 Multidisciplinary Team  Underdrain (Where Permitted)
 WSDOT Pavement Engineer Approval  Soil Preparation
Maintenance Requirements
TMDL/303(d) – Considerations1
 Access Roads or Pullouts
Avoid Preferred
 Vactor Truck Access
  Fecal Coliform Mowing

  Phosphorus (w/ compost blanket)* Valve Access

  Nitrogen Specialized Equipment

  Temperature Specialized Training
Dissolved Metals 
 
Further Requirements: See Sections
  Total Suspended Solids/Turbidity
5-3.7.1 and 5.5. Also, see Table 5-21.
  Dissolved Oxygen
  pH
  Oil/Grease *if a compost blanket is not used
  PAHs over the media filter drain then
  Pesticides this BMP is approved for
1. See Table 3-1 and Section 2-4.2 for additional guidance. phosphorous control.

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
The media filter drain (MFD), previously referred to as the ecology embankment, is a linear
flow-through stormwater runoff treatment device that can be sited along highway side slopes
(conventional design) and medians (dual media filter drains), borrow ditches, or other linear
depressions. Cut-slope applications may also be considered. The PEO can use the MFD where
available right of way is limited, sheet flow from the highway surface is feasible, and lateral
gradients are generally less than 25% (4H:1V). The PEO can also use the MFD in an end-of-pipe
application where surface runoff is collected and conveyed to a location where flows can
be redispersed to the MFD. The MFD has a General Use Level Designation (GULD) for basic,
enhanced, and phosphorus treatment (MFD without the 3-inch medium compost blanket).
Updates/changes to the use-level designation and any design changes will be posted in the
Post Publication Updates section of the HRM Resource Web Page.
MFD configurations are separated into seven typical installations. MFD Type 1 though Type 5
have the option of placing a 3-inch medium compost layer with grass over the MFD mix area.
If the 3-inch compost layer with grass is used on the MFD mix area, the BMP does not qualify
for phosphorous treatment. MFD Types 1 through 7 are shown in Figures 5-23 through 5-29.
The different MFD types are briefly described below:
 MFD Type 1 – Sheet flow application with underdrain.
 MFD Type 2 – Sheet flow applications; flows are from both sides of the median.
 MFD Type 3 – Sheet flow application without underdrain; drains to slope.
 MFD Type 4* – End-of-pipe application, redispersed to MFD with underdrain.
 MFD Type 5* – End-of-pipe application, redispersed to MFD without underdrain.
 MFD Type 6* – End-of-pipe application that is downstream of a detention BMP,
redispersed to MFD with underdrain. MFD Type 6 doesn’t have the no-vegetation
zone or grass strip because of the sediment storage in the upstream detention BMP.
MFD Type 6 must have a 3-inch medium compost blanket with grass over MFD mix
area. MFD Type 6 must have 8-inch-diameter compost socks, spaced at a minimum
of 4-foot intervals, along the bottom of the MFD media mix.
 MFD Type 7* – Same as Type 6, except MFD doesn’t have an underdrain; it drains to
the adjacent side slope.
*See Section 5-4.3.5 for redispersal design guidelines using a slotted pipe or perforated pipe
in a flow dispersal trench.

April 2019
Figure 5-23 Media filter drain Type 1: Side slope application with underdrain.

April 2019
Figure 5-24 Dual media filter drain Type 2: Median application.

April 2019
Figure 5-25 Media filter drain Type 3: Side slope application without underdrain.

April 2019
Figure 5-26 Media filter drain Type 4: End-of-pipe application with underdrain.

April 2019
Figure 5-27 Media filter drain Type 5: End-of-pipe application without underdrain.

April 2019
Figure 5-28 Media filter drain Type 6: End-of-pipe application with underdrain.

April 2019
Figure 5-29 Media filter drain Type 7: End-of-pipe application without underdrain.

April 2019
Functional Description
The MFD removes suspended solids, phosphorus (MFD without 3-inch medium compost
blanket), and metals from highway runoff through physical straining, ion exchange, carbonate
precipitation, and biofiltration.
Stormwater runoff is conveyed to the MFD via sheet flow or is redispersed to a vegetation-free
gravel zone (MFD Type 1 – Type 5) to ensure dispersion and provide some pollutant trapping.
Next, a grass strip provides pretreatment, further enhancing filtration and extending the life of
the system. The runoff is then filtered through a bed of porous, alkalinity-generating granular
medium—the media filter drain mix. Treated water drains away from the MFD mix bed into a
downstream conveyance system. Geotextile lines the underside of the MFD mix bed and the
underdrain pipe and trench (if applicable).
The underdrain trench is an option for hydraulic conveyance of treated stormwater to a desired
location, such as a downstream flow control facility, discharge point, or stormwater outfall. The
trench’s perforated underdrain pipe is a protective measure to ensure free flow through the
MFD mix. It may be possible to omit the underdrain pipe if it can be demonstrated that the pipe
is not necessary to maintain free flow through the MFD mix and underdrain trench.
It is critical to note that water should sheet flow across or be redispersed to the MFD. To ensure
sediment accumulation does not restrict sheet flow, edge of pavement installations should
include a 1-inch drop between the pavement surface and nonvegetation zone where there is
no guardrail or include a 1-inch drop where there is guardrail. Note that MFD Types 4 through
Type 7 include a 3-inch drop between the flow spreader and the MFD mix bed to ensure sheet
flow continues over time.
Applications
 Provides basic, phosphorus (MFD without 3-inch medium compost blanket on MFD
mix area), and enhanced water quality treatment.
 MFD Type 1 and Type 3 – Ideal along highway side slopes, when adjacent to wetlands,
and in narrow right of way locations.
 Dual MFD for Highway Medians (MFD Type 2) – Prime locations for the MFD Type 2
are in highway medians, roadside drainage or borrow ditches, or other linear
depressions. It is especially critical for water to sheet flow across the MFD Type 2.
Channelized flows or ditch flows running down the middle of the MFD Type 2
(continuous off-site inflow) should be minimized.
 MFD Type 4 and Type 5 – Ideal where stormwater needs to be or already is captured
and conveyed to a discharge location that can accommodate this BMP. These options
provide maximum flexibility for placement where sheet flow off the edge of pavement
is not feasible. Catch basins and pipes are used to convey stormwater to the MFD
Type 4 and Type 5.

April 2019
 MFD Type 6 and Type 7 – Ideal where stormwater needs to be collected and conveyed
for both runoff treatment and flow control. The MFD is downstream of the detention
BMP.
Limitations
 Ensure lateral MFD side slopes adjacent to the roadway pavement (MFD Type 1 –
Type 3) are less than 4H:1V. As side slopes approach 3H:1V, without design
modifications, sloughing may become a problem due to friction limitations
between the separation geotextile and underlying soils.
 Where the MFD is built away from the roadway (MFD Type 4 – Type 7), ensure the
lateral MFD side slope is less than 8H:1V.
 Ensure longitudinal MFD slopes are no steeper than 5%.
 Ensure the longest flow path from the contributing area delivering sheet flow to the
MFD (Type 1 – Type 3) does not exceed 150 feet.
 Do not construct in wetlands and wetland buffers.
 Shallow groundwater – Determine seasonal high groundwater table levels at the
project site to ensure the MFD mix bed and the underdrain (if applicable) will not
become saturated by shallow groundwater. The hydraulic and runoff treatment
performance of the MFD may be compromised due to backwater effects and lack
of sufficient hydraulic gradient due to shallow groundwater or pooling at the
discharge location.
 Unstable slopes – In areas where slope stability may be problematic, consult a
geotechnical engineer.
 Narrow roadway shoulders – In areas where there is a narrow roadway shoulder
(width less than 10 feet), consider placing the MFD farther down the embankment
slope. This will reduce the amount of rutting in the MFD and decrease overall
maintenance repairs. Also, consider using a MFD Type 5 or Type 6.
 Ensure the upstream conveyance system to a MFD Type 4 – Type 7 has adequate
hydraulic head to push flows through the redispersal structure and not create
upstream flooding problems.
LID Feasibility
The following criteria describe conditions that make MFDs infeasible to meet the LID
requirement. Additional general LID feasibility criteria that apply to all other LID type BMPs
can be found in Section 4-5.2, along with the site suitability criteria for infiltration design in
Section 4-5.1. The project may still use the MFD to meet the runoff treatment requirement
(Minimum Requirement 5). Citation of any of the following infeasibility criteria must be based
on an evaluation of site-specific conditions, must be documented using the LID feasibility
checklist, and should be included in the project’s Hydraulic Report, along with any applicable
written recommendations from an appropriate licensed professional (e.g., engineer, geologist,
hydrogeologist):

April 2019
 Where the site cannot be reasonably designed to locate a MFD on lateral slopes less
than 25% (MFD Type 1 – Type 3) or 12.5% (MFD Type 4 – Type 7).

Flows to Be Treated
Design MFDs to treat the runoff treatment flow rate discussed in Section 3-2.5 under
Minimum Requirement 5. Hydrologic methods are presented in Sections 4-3 and 4-4.

Geometry
Components
 No-Vegetation Zone – The no-vegetation zone (vegetation-free zone) is a shallow
gravel zone located directly adjacent to the highway pavement. The no-vegetation
zone is a crucial element in a properly functioning MFD or other BMPs that use sheet
flow to convey runoff from the highway surface to the BMP. The no-vegetation zone
functions as a level spreader to promote sheet flow and a deposition area for coarse
sediments. Make sure the no-vegetation zone is between 1 foot and 3 feet wide.
Depth will be a function of how the roadway section is built from subgrade to finish
grade; the resultant cross section will typically be triangular to trapezoidal. Within
these bounds, width varies depending on WSDOT maintenance spraying practices.
Contact the area maintenance office for this information.
 Grass Strip – The width of the grass strip is dependent on the availability of space
within the highway side slope and MFD type. The grass strip is required on MFD
Type 1 – Type 5. The minimum grass strip width is 3 feet, but wider grass strips
are recommended if the additional space is available. At a minimum, the existing
embankment will be scarified 2 inches and covered with a 3-inch blanket of medium
compost and seeded. Consider adding aggregate to the soil mix to help minimize
rutting problems from errant vehicles. The soil mix should ensure grass growth for
the design life of the MFD.
 Media Filter Drain Mix Bed – The MFD mix is a mixture of crushed rock (sized by
screening), dolomite, gypsum, and perlite. The crushed rock provides the support
matrix of the medium; the dolomite and gypsum add alkalinity and ion exchange
capacity to promote the precipitation and exchange of heavy metals; and the perlite
improves moisture retention to promote the formation of biomass within the
MFD mix. The combination of physical filtering, precipitation, ion exchange, and
biofiltration enhances the water treatment capacity of the mix. The MFD mix has
an estimated initial filtration rate of 50 inches per hour and a long-term filtration rate
of 28 inches per hour due to siltation. With an additional safety factor, the rate used
to size the length of the MFD should be 10 inches per hour. Internal 8-inch-diameter
medium compost socks are required along the bottom of the MFD Type 6 and Type 7
installations at even 4-foot spacings. Make sure there is a minimum of one row of
compost socks for each MFD Type 6 or Type 7 installation.

April 2019
 3-Inch Medium Compost Blanket and Grass – Place a 3-inch medium compost blanket
with grass over the media filter drain bed area to reduce noxious weeds and unwanted
vegetation. Do not use this compost blanket in phosphorous-sensitive areas or
phosphorous total maximum daily load (TMDL) areas. If this option is used, the MFD
will not be considered as a phosphorous treatment BMP. Do not use MFD Type 6 and
Type 7 in phosphorous-sensitive areas since the 3-inch compost blanket is required.
 Conveyance System Below Media Filter Drain Mix – The gravel underdrain trench
(MFD Type 1, Type 4, and Type 6) provides hydraulic conveyance when treated runoff
needs to be conveyed to a desired location such as a downstream flow control facility,
discharge point, or stormwater outfall. In Group C and D soils, an underdrain pipe
helps ensure free flow of the treated runoff through the MFD mix bed. In some Group
A and B soils, an underdrain pipe may not be necessary if most water percolates into
subsoil from the underdrain trench. Evaluate the need for underdrain pipe in all cases.
The PEO may eliminate the gravel underdrain trench if flows can be conveyed laterally
to an adjacent ditch or onto a fill slope that is properly vegetated to protect against
erosion (MFD Type 3 and Type 5). Keep the MFD mix free draining up to the 50-year
storm event water surface elevation represented in the downstream ditch.
Length (perpendicular to the direction of flow)
 The length of the MFD (Type 1 – Type 3) is the same as the length of the contributing
pavement.
 The length of the MFD (Type 4 – Type 7) depends on the sizing procedures. (See the
Design Method section below.)
Cross Section
 The surface of the MFD (Type 1 – Type 3) should have a lateral slope less than 4H:1V
(<25%). On steeper terrain, it may be possible to construct terraces to create a 4H:1V
slope, or other engineering may be employed to ensure slope stability up to 3H:1V.
 The surface of the MFD (Type 4 – Type 7) should have a lateral slope less than 8H:1V
(<12.5%).
Tributary Area
 For MFD (Type 1 – Type 3), the resultant slope from the contributing drainage area
should be less than or equal to 9.4%, calculated using Equation 29 10 in Section 5-4.2.2.
Materials
The MFD mix consists of the amendments listed in Table 5-7. Mixing and transportation must
occur in a manner that ensures the materials are thoroughly mixed prior to placement and
that separation does not occur during transportation or construction operations.
10
Report, May 2011.
April 2019
These materials should be used in accordance with the following Standard Specifications:
 Gravel Backfill for Drains – 9-03.12(4)
 Underdrain Pipe – 7-01.3(2)
 Construction Geotextile for Underground Drainage, Moderate survivability, drainage
class A, nonwoven – 9-33.1
 Crushed Surfacing Base Course (CSBC) – 9-03.9(3)
If the MFD is configured to allow the treated flows to drain laterally into a ditch (see Figure
5-25, MFD Type 3 and Figure 5-27, MFD Type 5), the crushed surfacing base course below
the MFD should conform to Standard Specification 9-03.9(3).
Design Method
Media Filter Drain Mix Bed Sizing Procedure for MFD Type 1 – Type 3
The width of the MFD mix bed is determined by the amount of contributing pavement routed
to the embankment. The surface area of the MFD mix bed needs to be sufficiently large to fully
infiltrate and filter the runoff treatment design flow rate using the long-term filtration rate of
the MFD mix. For design purposes, incorporate a 50% safety factor into the long-term MFD
mix filtration rate to accommodate variations in slope, resulting in a design filtration rate of
10 inches per hour. The MFD mix bed should have a bottom width of at least 2 feet in contact
with the conveyance system below the MFD mix.
The MFD mix bed should be a minimum of 12 inches deep, including the section on top of the
underdrain trench.
For runoff treatment, base the sizing of the MFD mix bed on the requirement that the runoff
treatment flow rate from the pavement area, QHighway, cannot exceed the long-term infiltration
capacity of the MFD, QInfiltration:
𝑄𝑄𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ≤ 𝑄𝑄𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (E-17)
For western Washington, QHighway is the flow rate at or below which 91% of the runoff volume
for the developed TDA will be treated, based on a 15-minute time step (see Section 4-3.1.1),
and can be determined using the water quality data feature in MGSFlood. For eastern
Washington, QHighway is the peak flow rate predicted for the 6-month, short-duration storm
under post-developed conditions for each TDA (see Appendix 4C), and can be determined
by selecting the short-duration storm option in StormShed.

April 2019
Base the long-term infiltration capacity of the MFD on the following equation:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 × 𝐿𝐿 × 𝑊𝑊
= 𝑄𝑄𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (E-18)
𝐶𝐶 × 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
where: LTIR = Long-term infiltration rate of the media filter drain mix
(use 10 inches per hour for design) (in/hr)
L = Length of media filter drain (parallel to roadway) (ft)
W = Width of the media filter drain mix bed (ft)
C = Conversion factor of 43200 ((in/hr)/(ft/sec))
SF = Safety Factor (equal to 1.0, unless unusually heavy
sediment loading is expected)
Assuming that the length of the MFD is the same as the length of the contributing pavement,
solve for the width of the media filter drain:
𝑄𝑄𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 × 𝐶𝐶 × 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
𝑊𝑊 ≥ (E-19)
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 × 𝐿𝐿
Western Washington project applications of this design procedure have shown that, in almost
every case, the calculated widths of the MFD Type 1 and Type 3 do not exceed 1.0 foot.
Therefore, Table 5-6 was developed to simplify the design steps; use it to establish an
appropriate width.
Table 5-6 Western Washington design widths for media filter drains (Type 1 and Type 3).
Pavement width that contributes Minimum media filter

runoff to the media filter drain drain width*
≤ 20 feet 2 feet
≥ 20 and ≤ 35 feet 3 feet
> 35 feet 4 feet
*Width does not include the required 1- to 3-foot gravel vegetation-free zone or the
3-foot grass strip width (see Figure 5-23).
Media Filter Drain Mix Bed Sizing Procedure for MFD Type 4 and Type 5
The length (perpendicular to the direction of flow) and width (parallel to the direction of flow)
of the MFD mix bed (Type 4 and Type 5) is determined by many factors. The design procedure
is outlined below:
1. Determine the total tributary pervious and impervious area (ft2) and flow rate (cfs) that will
be sent to the MFD.
2. For MFD Type 4 and Type 5, divide the tributary area determined in Step 1 above by the
“pavement area to MFD media area” ratio of 19.5. This determines the area of MFD
needed, and applies to on-line and off-line Type 4 and Type 5 MFDs.

April 2019
3. From Section 5-4.3.5, choose Option F (slotted flow dispersal pipe) or Option G (perforated
pipe in a gravel-backfilled trench with notched grade board) as the redispersal/flow
spreader structure type to be used upstream of the MFD. For on-line Type 4 and Type 5
MFDs, the number of flow spreaders and the flow spreader mounding analysis (Option F)
is based on the full 100-year rate from the tributary area coming to the MFD. For off-line
Type 4 and Type 5 MFDs, the number of flow spreaders and the flow spreader mounding
analysis (Option F) is based on the water quality storm flow rate.
4. Determine the length (perpendicular to the direction of flow) and width (parallel to the
direction of flow) of the MFD mix bed by the following:
a. The flow spreader length shall be between 50 feet and 200 feet. The number of flow
spreaders and their lengths are calculated based on the criteria in Step 3 above.
b. The width of the MFD mix bed = (flow spreader length)/5 for flow spreader lengths
of 50 feet to 100 feet.
c. The width of the MFD mix bed = 20 feet for flow spreader lengths of 101 feet to
200 feet.
d. Check to make sure the total area of MFD mix bed(s) calculated in (4) is greater than
or equal to the area determined in (2) above.
Media Filter Drain Mix Bed Sizing Procedure for MFD Type 6 and Type 7
MFD Type 6 and Type 7 are designed as on-line BMPs only. The design procedure is outlined
below:
1. From Section 5-4.3.5, choose Option F (slotted flow dispersal pipe) or Option G (perforated
pipe in a gravel-backfilled trench with notched grade board) as the redispersal/flow
spreader structure type to be used upstream of the MFD. The number of flow spreaders
and the flow spreader mounding analysis (if using Option F) shall be based on the 100-year
release rate from the detention BMP (MGSFlood, 15-minute time steps). Determine the
length of each flow spreader.
2. Determine the MFD mix bed area (L x W) using the long-term infiltration capacity of the
MFD based on Equation 18, with the following clarifications:
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 × 𝐿𝐿 × 𝑊𝑊
= 𝑄𝑄2𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 (E-20)
𝐶𝐶 × 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
where: LTIR = Long-term infiltration rate of the media filter drain mix
(use 10 inches per hour for design) (in/hr)
L = Length of media filter drain (parallel to spreader) (ft)
W = Width of the media filter drain mix bed (ft) measured
parallel to the flow
C = Conversion factor of 43200 ((in/hr)/(ft/sec))
SF = Safety Factor (equal to 2.0)
Q2year = 2-year release rate (15-minute time steps) from the
detention facility

April 2019
3. The number of flow spreaders and length of each flow spreader was determined in Step 1.
The length of the flow spreader(s) is equal to the length of the MFD. The width of the MFD
follows the same ratios stated in Steps 4b and 4c of the MFD Type 4 and Type 5 design.
Determine the total MFD mix bed length (L) and width (W). Check to make sure the
calculated MFD mix bed area (L x W) is greater than or equal to the MFD mix bed area
calculated in Step 2.
Underdrain Design
Underdrain pipe can provide a protective measure to ensure free flow through the MFD mix
and is sized similar to storm drains. For MFD underdrain sizing, an additional step is required
to determine the flow rate that can reach the underdrain pipe. This is done by comparing the
contributing basin flow rate to the infiltration flow rate through the MFD mix and then using
the smaller of the two to size the underdrain. The analysis described below considers the flow
rate per foot of MFD, which allows the PEO the flexibility of incrementally increasing the
underdrain diameter where long lengths of underdrain are required. When underdrain pipe
connects to a storm drain system, place the invert of the underdrain pipe above the 25-year
water surface elevation in the storm drain to prevent backflow into the underdrain system.
Figure 5-30 Media filter drain underdrain installation.
The following describes the procedure for sizing underdrains in a MFD Type 1, 2, 4, and 6.
1. Calculate the flow rate per foot from the contributing basin to the MFD. The design storm
event used to determine the flow rate should be relevant to the purpose of the underdrain.
For example, if the MFD Type 1 installation is in western Washington and the underdrain
will be used to convey treated runoff to a detention BMP, size the underdrain for the 50-
year storm event. (See the Hydraulics Manual, Figure 2-2.1, for conveyance flow rate
determination.)

April 2019
𝑄𝑄ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑄𝑄ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
=
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
(E-21)
𝑄𝑄ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
where: = contributing flow rate per foot (cfs/ft)
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
LMFD = length of MFD contributing runoff to the underdrain (ft)
2. Calculate the MFD flow rate of runoff per foot given an infiltration rate of 10 in/hr through
the MFD mix.
𝑓𝑓 × 𝑊𝑊 × 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 1ℎ𝑟𝑟
𝑄𝑄𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = × × (E-22)
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 12𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 3600𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
Q MFD
where: ft
= flow rate of runoff through MFD mix layer (cfs/ft)
W = width of underdrain trench (ft) – see Standard Plan
B-55.20-02; the minimum width is 2 ft
f = infiltration rate though the MFD mix (in/hr) = 10 in/hr
3. Size the underdrain pipe to convey the runoff that can reach the underdrain trench. This is
taken to be the smaller of the contributing basin flow rate or the flow rate through the MFD
mix layer.
𝑄𝑄𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 �𝑄𝑄ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑄𝑄𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 � (E-23)

𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
where: 𝑄𝑄𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = underdrain design flow rate per foot (cfs/ft)

𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
4. Determine the underdrain design flow rate using the length of the MFD and a factor of
safety of 1.2.
𝑄𝑄𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = 1.2 × 𝑄𝑄𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 × 𝑊𝑊 × 𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (E-24)
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
where: QUD = estimated flow rate to the underdrain (cfs)

W = width of the underdrain trench (ft) – see Standard Plan
B-55.20-02; the minimum width is 2 ft
LMFD = length of MFD contributing runoff to the underdrain (ft)
5. Given the underdrain design flow rate, determine the underdrain diameter. Round pipe
diameters to the nearest standard pipe size and have a minimum diameter of 6 inches.
For diameters that exceed 12 inches, contact either the RHE or HQ Hydraulics Section.
3
𝑄𝑄𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 × 𝑛𝑛 8
𝐷𝐷 = 16 � � (E-25)
𝑠𝑠 0.5
where: D = underdrain pipe diameter (inches)
n = Manning’s coefficient
s = slope of pipe (ft/ft)

April 2019
Table 5-7 Media filter drain mix.
Amendment Quantity
Mineral aggregate shall meet all requirements for the WSDOT Standard 3 cubic yards
Specifications 9-03.4 Aggregate for Bituminous Surface Treatment - Crushed
screenings 3/8-inch to No.4 with the exception of:
The fracture requirement shall be at least two fractured faces and will apply to
material retained on the U.S. No. 4 sieve in accordance with FOP for AASHTO T 335.
Perlite: 1 cubic yard per 3

 WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-14.4(9) Horticultural grade cubic yards of mineral
aggregate
Dolomite: 40 pounds per cubic
 WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-14.4(5) Agricultural grade yard of perlite
Gypsum: 12 pounds per cubic

 WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-14.4(6) Agricultural grade yard of perlite

Landscape the grass strip the same as the vegetated filter strips (see BMP RT.02) unless
otherwise specified in the special provisions for the project’s construction documents.
Keep effective erosion and sediment control measures in place until grass strip is established.
Do not allow vehicles or traffic on the MFD, to minimize rutting and maintenance repairs.
Operations and Maintenance
Maintenance will consist of routine roadside management. While herbicides should not be
applied directly over the MFD, it may be necessary to periodically control noxious weeds with
herbicides in areas around the MFD as part of WSDOT's roadside management program. The
use of pesticides may be prohibited if the MFD is in a critical aquifer recharge area for drinking
water supplies. Check with the local area water purveyor or local health department. Areas of
the MFD that show signs of physical damage will be replaced by local maintenance staff in
consultation with the RHE.
Signage
Refer to Section 5-5.3 for signing requirements. Additionally, if the MFD is in a critical aquifer
recharge area for drinking water supplies, provide signage prohibiting the use of pesticides.

April 2019
RT.08 – Bioretention Area
Description: Bioretention areas

(also knows as rain gardens) are
shallow landscaped depressions that
use a designed soil mix and plants
to provide runoff treatment and in
some cases flow control.
Ponding Depth 12" Max
Pool Drawdown 24 Hours
Groundwater Clearance 1-3' Min
Interior Sidewalls 2H-1V
Bioretention Area along SR 99 in King
Soil Depth 18" Min
County
BMP Function
 LID
 Flow Control  5-20
 Oil Control Capital Cost O & M Cost
 Phosphorus
 TSS - Basic
 Moderate  Moderate
 4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria  Soil Amendments/Compost
 Landscaping/Planting  5-4.3.3 Facility Liners
 Overflow  Presettling/Pretreatment
 Multidisciplinary Team  Underdrain
 WSDOT Pavement Engineer Approval  Soil Preparation

  Phosphorus  Mowing
  Temperature  Specialized Equipment
  Dissolved Metals  Specialized Training
  Total Suspended Solids/Turbidity Further Requirements: See Sections
  Dissolved Oxygen 5-3.7.1 and 5.5.
  pH
  Oil/Grease
  PAHs
  Pesticides
guidance.

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
For guidelines and criteria on the design of bioretention areas, refer Ecology’s Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW).
Application, Limitations, and LID Feasibility
Applications
 Bioretention areas provide enhanced runoff treatment.
Limitations
 Bioretention areas use an imported soil mix that has a moderate design infiltration
rate. Apply them to small drainage areas near the source of stormwater.
 Do not use bioretention areas with imported compost materials within ¼ mile of
phosphorus-sensitive water bodies if the underlying soils do not meet the site
suitability criteria for treatment (SSC 7 in Section 4-5.1).
 Do not use bioretention areas with the underdrain in areas that have a TMDL for
phosphorous.
LID Feasibility
The LID feasibility criteria described in Section 4-5.2 list conditions that make bioretention areas
infeasible to meet the LID requirement. Even if bioretention areas are deemed infeasible to
meet the LID requirement, the PEO may still use the bioretention area to meet the runoff
treatment requirement (Minimum Requirement 5). Citation of any of the infeasibility criteria
must be based on an evaluation of site-specific conditions, must be documented using the LID
feasibility checklist, and should be included in the project’s Hydraulic Report, along with any
geologist, hydrogeologist).
Signage

April 2019
5-4.1.4 Wetpool BMPs

RT.12 – Wet Pond

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
A wet pond is a constructed stormwater pond that retains a permanent pool of water
(wetpool), at least during the wet season. The volume of the wetpool is related to the
effectiveness of the pond in settling particulate pollutants. As an option, the PEO can create
a shallow marsh area within the permanent pool volume to provide additional treatment
for nutrient removal. The PEO can provide peak flow control in the live storage area above
the permanent pool. Figures 5-31 and 5-32 illustrate a typical wet pond BMP.
Applications
 Design wet ponds in two sizes: basic and large (see Table 3-1). Basic wet ponds are
approved basic runoff treatment BMPs. Large wet ponds are designed for higher levels
of pollutant removal and are an appropriate treatment BMP for phosphorus control.
 It is recommended that all runoff treatment BMPs that use permanent wetpools use
facility liners. Refer to Section 5-4.3.3 for additional information.
 Refer to BMP CO.01 (Combined Wet/Detention Pond) if the pond is to be used for
flow control in addition to runoff treatment.
Limitations
 A wet pond BMP must be an on-line facility.

Flows to Be Treated
Design basic wet ponds to treat the runoff treatment volume described in Section 3-2.5 under
Minimum Requirement 5. Design large wet ponds to treat a volume 1.5 times greater than the
runoff treatment volume. Hydrologic methods are presented in Sections 4-3 and 4-4.

April 2019
Figure 5-31 Wet pond: Plan view.

April 2019
Figure 5-32 Wet pond: Cross section.

April 2019

Geometry
The wet pond is divided into a minimum of two cells separated by a baffle or berm. The first cell
must contain between 25% and 35% of the total wet pond volume. The baffle or berm volume
does not count as part of the total wet pond volume. The term baffle means a vertical divider
placed across the entire width of the pond, stopping short of the bottom. A berm is a vertical
divider typically built up from the bottom; in a wet vault, it connects all the way to the bottom.
Intent: The full-length berm or baffle promotes plug flow and enhances quiescence and laminar
flow through as much of the entire water volume as possible. Alternative methods to the full-
length berm or baffle that provide equivalent flow characteristics may be approved on a case-
by-case basis by the local jurisdiction.
Provide sediment storage in the first cell. Ensure the minimum depth of the sediment storage
is 1 foot. Install a fixed sediment depth monitor in the first cell to gauge sediment
accumulation, or use an alternative gauging method if approved by the local maintenance
office.
Ensure the minimum depth of the first cell is 4 feet, exclusive of sediment storage
requirements. The depth of the first cell may be greater than the depth of the second cell.
Ensure the maximum depth of each cell does not exceed 8 feet, exclusive of sediment storage
in the first cell.
Wet ponds with wetpool volumes less than or equal to 4,000 cubic feet may be single-celled
(no baffle or berm is required). However, it is especially important that the flow path length
be maximized in single-celled wet ponds. Make sure the ratio of flow path length to width is
greater than 4:1 in single-celled wet ponds.
Line the first cell in accordance with the liner recommendations in Section 5-4.3.3.
Consider designing sinuous or irregularly shaped ponds to create a more natural landscape.
Consider orienting the pond length along the direction of prevailing summer winds (typically
west or southwest) to enhance wind mixing.
Materials
All metal parts must be corrosion-resistant. Do not use galvanized materials unless
unavoidable.
Intent: Galvanized metal contributes zinc to stormwater, sometimes in very high concentrations.

April 2019
Berms, Baffles, and Slopes

A berm or baffle must extend across the full width of the wetpool and tie into the wet pond
side slopes. If the berm embankments are greater than 4 feet high, the PEO must construct the
berm by excavating a key trench equal to 50% of the embankment cross-sectional height and
width. A geotechnical engineer may waive this requirement for specific site conditions. A
geotechnical analysis must address situations in which one of the two cells is empty while
the other remains full of water.
The top of the berm may be at the runoff treatment design water surface (WQ or top of dead
storage) elevation or submerged 1 foot below this surface. If the top of the berm is at the WQ
surface elevation, Make sure berm side slopes are 3H:1V. Berm side slopes may be steeper
(up to 2H:1V) if the berm is submerged 1 foot. Make sure earthen berms have a minimum
top width of 5 feet.
Intent: Submerging the berm is intended to enhance safety by discouraging pedestrian access
when side slopes are steeper than 3H:1V. An alternative to the submerged berm design is the
use of barrier planting to prevent easy access to the divider berm in an unfenced wet pond.
If good vegetation cover is not established on the berm, use erosion control measures to
prevent erosion of the berm backslope when the pond is initially filled.
The interior berm or baffle may be a retaining wall, provided that the design is prepared and
stamped by a licensed civil engineer. If a baffle or retaining wall is used, ensure it is submerged
1 foot below the design water surface to discourage access by pedestrians.
Criteria for wet pond side slopes are as follows:
 Interior side slopes must be no steeper than 3H:1V. Steeper side slopes will contain
the width or thickness of emergent vegetation, leading to higher density. Dense
emergent vegetation causes the following problems: it provides predator-free
shoreline habitats for mosquito production, and it reduces or eliminates access
to the pond for routine inspections and maintenance.
 Exterior side slopes must be no steeper than 2H:1V.
 Slopes should be no steeper than 4H:1V if they are to be mowed.
 Pond sides may be retaining walls, provided that a fence is situated along the top of
the wall and at least 25% of the pond perimeter is a vegetated side slope no steeper
than 3H:1V.
 The toe of the exterior slope must be no closer than 5 feet from the right of way line.
Embankments
Embankments that impound water must comply with the Washington dam safety regulations
(WAC 173-175). If the impoundment has a storage capacity (including both water and sediment
storage volumes) greater than 10 acre-feet (435,600 cubic feet, or 3.26 million gallons) above
natural ground level, then dam safety design and review are required by Ecology. (See
discussion in BMP FC.03, Detention Pond.)

April 2019
Construct the berm embankment in accordance with Section 2-03.3(14)C, Method C, of the
Standard Specifications.
Construct the berm embankment of material consisting of a minimum of 30% clay, a maximum
of 60% sand, a maximum of 60% silt, and negligible gravel and cobble.
To prevent undermining, consider installation of a perimeter cutoff trench underneath or near
embankments.
Place antiseepage collars on outflow pipes in berm embankments impounding water deeper
than 8 feet at the runoff treatment design water surface. Antiseepage collars may also be
necessary in other situations.
Inlet and Outlet
For details on the following requirements, see Figures 5-31 and 5-32.
All inlets must enter the first cell. If there are multiple inlets, base the length-to-width ratio
on the average flow path length for all inlets.
Place inlets and outlets to maximize the flow path through the facility. Ensure the ratio of flow
path length to width from the inlet to the outlet is at least 3:1. The flow path length is defined
as the distance from the inlet to the outlet, as measured at mid-depth. The width at mid-depth
is calculated as follows: width = (average top width + average bottom width)/2.
Submerge the inlet to the wet pond, with the inlet pipe invert a minimum of 2 feet above the
pond bottom (not including the 1-foot-minimum sediment storage). Submerge the top of the
inlet pipe at least 1 foot below the WQ surface elevation, if possible. Compute the hydraulic
grade line (HGL) of the inlet pipe to verify that backwater conditions are acceptable. (See the
Hydraulics Manual for computing an HGL.)
Intent: The inlet is submerged to dissipate the energy of the incoming flow. The distance from
the bottom is set to minimize resuspension of settled sediments. Alternative inlet designs that
accomplish these objectives are acceptable.
The PEO must provide an outlet structure. Use either a Type 2 catch basin (see the WSDOT
Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction [Standard Plans]) or a manhole
with a cone grate (birdcage). No sump is required in the outlet structure for wet ponds not
providing detention storage. The outlet structure receives flow from the pond outlet pipe. The
birdcage opening provides an overflow route should the pond outlet pipe become clogged.
Ensure the pond outlet pipe (from the pond into the outlet structure) is back-sloped, or have a
turn-down elbow, and extend 1 foot below the WQ surface. A floating outlet, set to draw water
from 1 foot below the water surface, is also acceptable if vandalism concerns are adequately
addressed.
Intent: The inverted outlet pipe traps oils and floatables in the wet pond.

April 2019
Consider alternative methods to dissipate energy at the end of the outlet pipe, such as a
dissipater tee, to reduce the need for extensive riprap.
Provide gravity drains in each cell of the wet pond to help drain down the dead storage for
maintenance purposes. (See Figures 5-31 and 5-32 for placement, and see Section 5-3.7.1
for more details.)
Primary Overflow
The overflow criteria for single-purpose (treatment only, not combined with flow control)
wet ponds are as follows:
 Note that an open top standpipe riser in the control structure satisfies the
requirement for primary overflow design (see Figure 5-32).
 Calculate the top of the riser, which sets the primary overflow elevation, per the
Design Method shown below.
 Size the riser diameter to pass the 100-year flow. Size the downstream conveyance
system to pass WSDOT conveyance system requirements per the Hydraulics Manual.
Emergency Overflow Spillway
Provide an emergency spillway or structure, and design it according to the requirements for
detention ponds (see BMP FC.03).
Design Method
Design Steps (D)
D-1 Identify the required wetpool volume (Volwq). For options to determine this volume
using continuous runoff models, see Chapter 4. For large wet ponds, the wetpool
volume is 1.5 times the water quality volume.
D-2 Estimate wetpool dimensions that satisfy the following design criterion:
Volwq = [h1(At1 + Ab1) / 2] + [h2(At2 + Ab2) / 2] +……+ [hn(Atn + Abn) / 2] (E-26)
where: Atn = top area of wetpool surface in cell n (ft2)

Abn = bottom area of wetpool surface in cell n (ft2)
hn = depth of wetpool in cell n (above top of sediment
storage) (ft)
D-3 Design pond outlet pipe and determine primary overflow water surface. Size the
pond outlet pipe, at a minimum, to pass the runoff treatment design flow. Note: Set
the highest invert of the outlet pipe to the runoff treatment design water surface
elevation.
a. Use the inlet control nomographs (Figures 3-3.4.2A and 3-3.4.2B) in the
Hydraulics Manual to determine the pond outlet pipe size sufficient to pass
the on-line runoff treatment design flow.

April 2019
b. With the outlet pipe diameter and water quality flow rate, use Figure 3-3.4.5L in
the Hydraulics Manual (Critical Depth for Circular Pipe) to determine the critical
depth dc.
c. Knowing the ratio of critical depth to outlet pipe diameter (dc/D), determine the
flow area at critical depth (Ac). To do this, follow Steps 3–6 in the Hydraulics
Manual, Example 3-3.5.2.1. Solve for Aprop (which is also the same as Ac) using
Hydraulics Manual Figure 3-3.5.2.
d. Calculate the critical velocity Vc by dividing the runoff treatment flow rate in
Step “a” by the critical area Ac in Step “c.”
e. Calculate the velocity head VH. VH = (Vc)2/2g where g = 32.2 ft/sec.
f. Add the velocity head (VH), the critical depth Dc, and the invert elevation
at the outflow end of the pond outlet pipe to determine the primary
overflow water surface elevation. Primary overflow elevation = outflow
invert elevation + Dc + VH.
g. Adjust the outlet pipe diameter if needed and repeat Steps “a” – “c.”

Setback Requirements
Wet ponds must be a minimum of 5 feet from any property line or vegetative buffer. The PEO
may need to increase this distance based on the permit requirements of the local jurisdiction.
Wet ponds must be 100 feet from any septic tank or drain field (except wet vaults must be
a minimum of 20 feet).
Request from the WSDOT Materials Lab a geotechnical report for the project that evaluates any
potential structural site instability due to extended subgrade saturation or head loading of the
permeable layer. This includes the potential impacts to downgradient properties, especially on
hills with known side-hill seeps. The report should address the adequacy of the proposed wet
pond locations and recommend the necessary setbacks from any steep slopes and building
foundations.
Do not plant vegetation in the cells in large wet ponds intended for phosphorus control because
the plants release phosphorus in the winter when they die off.
Revegetate the side slopes of the basic wet pond to the maximum extent practicable. The
minimum vegetation effort would be to hydroseed the basic wet pond’s interior above the
water quality (top of dead storage) design surface elevation and the exterior side slopes before
completion of the project.

April 2019
For all cells of basic wet ponds that are 18” or deeper (not inclusive of the sediment storage),
plant with emergent vegetation starting from 18” below the WQ (top of dead storage) design
elevation up to the WQ design elevation. (See emergent plant vegetation Table 5-8.)
Intent: Planting of shallow pond areas helps to stabilize settled sediment and prevent
resuspension.
Cattails (Typha latifolia) are not recommended because they tend to crowd out other species
in the wet pond and typically escape to other wetland areas where they do the same. They
also create dense emergent vegetation that can provide a safe haven for mosquito larvae.
Plant shrubs that form a dense cover on slopes above the runoff treatment design water
surface on at least three sides. For banks that are berms, no planting is allowed if the berm is
regulated by dam safety requirements. The purpose of planting is to discourage waterfowl use
of the pond and to provide shading. Some suitable trees and shrubs include vine maple (Acer
circinatum), wild cherry (Prunus emarginata), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera),
California myrtle (Myrica californica), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), and Pacific
yew (Taxus brevifolia).
Conifer or columnar deciduous trees along the west and south sides of ponds are
recommended to reduce thermal heating, except that no trees or shrubs may be planted
on berms meeting the criteria of dams regulated for safety. In addition to shade, trees and
shrubs also discourage waterfowl use and the attendant phosphorus enrichment problems
they cause. Set the trees back so that the branches will not extend over the pond.
Intent: Conifer trees or shrubs are preferred to avoid problems associated with leaf drop.
Columnar deciduous trees (such as hornbeam and Lombardy poplar) typically have fewer
leaves than other deciduous trees.
Provide visual enhancement with clusters of trees and shrubs. On most pond sites, it is
important to amend the soil before planting because ponds are typically placed well below
the native soil horizon in very poor soils. Make sure dam safety restrictions against planting
do not apply.
Consult with the Region or HQ Landscape Architect to determine the planting plan and plant
establishment and requirements for the basic wet pond.
Remove sediment that has accumulated in the pond after construction in the drainage area
of the pond is complete unless used for a liner (see below).
The PEO may use sediment accumulations in the pond at the end of construction as a liner in
excessively drained wet pond soils if the sediment meets the criteria for low-permeability
or treatment liners (see Section 5-4.3.2). Make sure sediment used for a soil liner is graded
to provide uniform coverage and thickness. Note: Sediment accumulated from construction
and left in the pond for a liner must not reduce the volume of the wet pond below its
design capacity; therefore, the pond should be overexcavated initially.

April 2019
Fencing
Pond walls may be retaining walls as long as a fence is provided along the top of the wall and at
least 25% of the pond perimeter will have a slope of 3H:1V or flatter. (See the Design Manual
for additional fencing requirements.)
For general operations and maintenance requirements for wet ponds, see Section 5-3.7.1.
maintenance considerations. The access and maintenance road could be extended along
the full length of the wet pond to function as a vegetated filter strip (see BMP RT.02) if
finely ground bark, wood chips, or permeable surfacing is placed over the road surface
to reduce runoff.
Signage

April 2019
CO.01 – Combined Wet/Detention Pond

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
A combination wet/detention pond facility has the appearance of a detention facility, but
contains a permanent pool of water as well. The following design procedures, requirements,
and recommendations cover differences in the design of the stand-alone runoff treatment
facility when combined with detention storage.
There are two sizes of the wet pond portion of the combined BMP: basic and large. The facility
sizes (basic and large) are related to the pollutant-removal goals. Typical design details and
concepts for a combined wet/detention pond are shown in Figures 5-33 and 5-34. The
detention portion of the facility must meet the design criteria and sizing procedures set forth in
BMP FC.03, Detention Pond.
Applications
 Combined detention and runoff treatment facilities are very efficient for sites that also
have flow control requirements but are not conducive to dispersion or infiltration. The
runoff treatment BMP may often be placed beneath detention storage without
increasing the overall facility surface area.
 It is recommended that all runoff treatment BMPs that use permanent wetpools use
facility liners. Additional information can be found in Section 5-4.3.3.
Limitations
 The fluctuating water surface of the live storage creates unique challenges for plant
growth and for aesthetics. Criteria that limit the extent of water level fluctuation
are specified to better ensure survival of the wetland plants. (See the combined
detention/stormwater wetland (BMP CO.02).
 Unlike the wetpool volume, the live storage component of the facility must be
provided above the seasonal high water table.

Flows to Be Treated
Basic combined wet/detention ponds are designed to treat the runoff treatment volume and
detain flows according to the criteria described in Sections 3-2.5 and 3-2.6 under Minimum
Requirements 5 and 6, respectively. Large combined wet/detention ponds are designed to
treat 1.5 times the runoff treatment volume. Hydrologic methods are presented in Sections
4-3 and 4-4.

April 2019
Figure 5-33 Combined wet/detention pond: Plan view.

April 2019
Figure 5-34 Combined wet/detention pond: Cross sections.

April 2019

The Structural Design Considerations for combined wet/detention ponds are identical to those
outlined for wet ponds (see BMP RT.12) and detention ponds (see BMP FC.03) except for those
listed below.
Geometry
The geometry criteria for wet ponds (see BMP RT.12) apply, with the following modifications
and clarifications:
 The permanent pool may be made shallower to take up most of the pond bottom, or
it may be deeper and positioned to take up only a limited portion of the bottom. Wet
pond criteria governing water depth, however, must still be met. (See Figure 5-35 for
two possibilities for wetpool cell placement.)
Intent: This flexibility in positioning cells allows for multiple-use options in live storage
areas during the drier months.
 The minimum sediment storage depth in the first cell is 1 foot. The 6 inches of
sediment storage required for a detention pond does not need to be added to this,
but 6 inches of sediment storage must be added to the second cell to comply with
the detention sediment storage requirement.
 The wetpool and sediment storage volumes are not included in the required detention
volume.
Inlet and Outlet
The inlet and outlet criteria for wet ponds (see BMP RT.12) apply, with the following
modifications:
 A sump must be provided in the outlet structure of combined ponds.
 The detention flow restrictor and its outlet pipe must be designed according to the
requirements for detention ponds (see BMP FC.03).
Design Method
The sizing procedure for combined wet/detention ponds is identical to that outlined for wet
ponds (see BMP RT.12) and detention ponds (see BMP FC.03).

The Site Design Elements for combined wet/detention ponds are identical to those outlined
for wet ponds (see BMP RT.12) and detention ponds (see BMP FC.03), except for the one
listed below:
Landscaping (Planting Considerations) and Vegetation Management
Same as for wet ponds (see BMP RT.12).

April 2019
Figure 5-35 Alternative configurations of wet/detention pond areas.

April 2019
RT.13 – Constructed Stormwater Treatment Wetland

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Stormwater treatment wetlands are shallow constructed wetlands designed to treat
stormwater through settling, filtering, and the biological processes associated with emergent
aquatic plants. Stormwater treatment wetlands, like wet ponds, are used to capture and
transform pollutants. Over time, these pollutants concentrate in the sediment.
Instead of treating stormwater runoff, some wetlands are constructed to replace or mitigate
impacts when natural wetlands are filled or impacted by development (mitigation wetlands).
Do not use natural wetlands and mitigation wetlands to treat stormwater.
Applications
 As an enhanced treatment BMP, stormwater wetlands can be considered for
roadways where metal removal is a concern.
 Stormwater wetlands occupy roughly the same surface area as wet ponds that are
1.5 feet deep, but they have the potential to be better integrated aesthetically into
a site because of the abundance of emergent aquatic vegetation.
 Stormwater wetlands are a good runoff treatment facility choice in areas where
groundwater levels are high in the winter.
Limitations
 The most critical factor for a successful design is an adequate supply of water for most
of the year. Careful planning is needed to ensure sufficient water is retained to sustain
good wetland plant growth.
 Because water depths in stormwater wetlands are shallower than in wet ponds, water
loss by evaporation is an important concern.
 During initial construction and plant establishment, adjusting water levels to ensure
wetland plant grow is critical. The constructed stormwater treatment wetland needs
to have the plants established before being able to treat stormwater.

Flows to Be Treated
Design constructed stormwater treatment wetlands to treat the runoff treatment volume
(Volwq) described in Section 3-2.5 under Minimum Requirement 5. Hydrologic methods are
presented in Sections 4-3 and 4-4.

April 2019

Geometry
Stormwater wetlands must consist of two cells: presettling cell and wetland cell.
 The presettling cell must contain approximately 33% of the wetpool volume.
 The depth of the presettling cell must be between 4 feet (minimum) and 8 feet
(maximum), excluding sediment storage.
 The presettling cell must provide 1 foot of sediment storage.
 The wetland cell must not exceed a water depth of about 1.5 feet (plus or minus
3 inches).
Where right of way allows, orient the wetland length along the direction of prevailing summer
winds (typically west or southwest) to enhance wind mixing.
The top of the berm separating the two cells must be either at the runoff treatment design
water surface or submerged 1 foot below this surface, as for wet ponds. Correspondingly, the
side slopes of the berm must meet the following criteria:
 For safety reasons the berm should not be greater than 3H:1V, just as the wetland
banks should not be greater than 3H:1V if the wetland is not fenced.
Liners
Ensure both the presettling and wetland cell are lined with a low-permeability liner as
described in Section 5-4.3.3. The PEO may use a treatment liner if the soil permeability can
retain sufficient water to support wetland plants. Sufficient water means that the top 1 foot of
soil is saturated for a minimum of 30 days during the growing season. This shall be
demonstrated by:
1. Performing a wetland hydroperiod analysis using MGSFlood or other methods as described
in Appendix I-C of Volume 1 of the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington. Section 4-5 describes the methods for estimating infiltration and groundwater
monitoring requirements.
2. Receiving approval from the Multidisciplinary Team as described below.
Buoyancy checks and counterweight may be necessary depending on groundwater conditions.
Inlet and Outlet
Provide an inlet to the presettling cell according to the requirements described in Section
5-4.1.4, Wetpool BMPs. Provide an overflow structure with debris cage per Figure 5-37 to
discharge flows from the wetland cell.
Dewatering and Water Level Control
Configure the presettling cell with a gravity drain for dewatering. Configure the wetland cell
with a gravity drain for dewatering and a water level control structure. Refer to Section 5-3.7.1

April 2019
for information regarding gravity drains. The following supplements or overrides the
contradictory guidance in Section 5-3.7.1:
 Size the gravity drain one size larger than the calculated diameter, with a minimum
8-inch diameter.
 For the wetland cell, locate the gravity drain’s invert at the bottom of the wetland cell
and slope toward the outlet structure where the shut-off valve is located. Provide a
sump as shown in Figure 5-37.
 Provide a water level control structure (which could be a gravity drain in the wetland
cell) capable of adjusting the water level through all expected water levels in the
wetland cell. The primary purpose of this structure is to adjust the water level during
plant establishment. The PEO may remove the water level control structure after
plants have reached the minimum cover for system start up.
Primary Overflow
The primary overflow criteria for single-purpose wetlands (treatment only, not combined with
flow control) follow the same criteria as for wet ponds (see BMP RT.12).
Provide an emergency spillway and design it according to the requirements for detention ponds
(see BMP FC.03).
Provide bioengineered stabilization measures at the end of the outlet pipe and spillway to
minimize the need for riprap and to increase aesthetics.
Design Method
Step 1 Specify the depth of the presettling cell (Dpc ft). (See the second bullet under
Geometry above.)
Step 2 Determine the volume of the presettling cell (Vpc ft3) by using the bullets under
Geometry above: Vpc = Vtotal x 0.33. Vtotal is the total runoff treatment wetpool
volume obtained in MGSFlood. Refer to Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 to determine the
sizing of the runoff treatment wetpool volume (Vtotal). If Vtotal is less than 9,410 ft3,
consult the RHE due to possible constructability issues with the presettling cell. For
combined treatment stormwater wetland/detention ponds, size the first (presettling)
cell as required to meet the 4-foot minimum wetpool depth and volume.
Step 3 Determine the surface area of the presettling cell (Apc ft2) of the stormwater wetland
using the presettling cell volume and depth: Apc = Vpc / Dpc.

April 2019
Step 4 Calculate the surface area of the stormwater wetland. Ensure the surface area of the
entire wetland (Atotal ft2) is the same as the top area of a wet pond sized for the
same site conditions. The surface area of the entire stormwater wetland is the runoff
treatment wetpool volume divided by the wetpool water depth (use 3 feet): Atotal =
Vtotal / 3 ft. The intent of using the wetpool depth is to keep the surface area of a
stormwater wetland roughly equivalent to a wet pond. However, the depth of the
wetland cell is limited to 1.5 feet.
Figure 5-36 Constructed stormwater treatment wetland: Plan/Section view

April 2019
Figure 5-37 Constructed stormwater treatment wetland outlet structure.

Step 5 Determine the surface area of the wetland cell (Awc ft2). Subtract the surface area of
the presettling cell from the total wetland surface area (Atotal): Awc = Atotal – Apc.
The second wetland cell shall have a minimum surface area of 1,950 ft2.
One example for grading the bottom of the wetland cell is shown in Figure 5-36. The wetland
cell is graded to a typical depth of 1.5 feet with a slight, even slope from the upstream to the
downstream edge of the wetland cell. The wetland cell depth shall not exceed 1.5 feet.

Groundwater
Monitor groundwater as described in Section 4D-3, except the monitoring season shall extend
to one year. Locate monitoring test holes as described for infiltration ponds.
Stormwater treatment wetlands must be a minimum of 5 feet from any property line or
vegetative buffer. This distance may need to be increased based on the permit requirements
of the local jurisdiction.
Stormwater treatment wetlands must be 100 feet from any septic tank or drain field, except
wet vaults, which must be a minimum of 20 feet.
April 2019
Request from the WSDOT Materials Lab a geotechnical report for the project that evaluates any
potential structural site instability due to extended subgrade saturation and/or head loading of
the permeable layer. This includes the potential impacts to downgradient properties, especially
on hills with known side-hill seeps. The report should address the adequacy of the proposed
stormwater treatment wetland locations and recommend the necessary setbacks from any
steep slopes and building foundations.
 Construction and maintenance considerations are the same as those for wet ponds
(see BMP RT.12).
 To estimate the length of time needed to establish wetland plants before allowing
the system to go online, see “Landscaping (Planting Considerations) and Plant
Establishment” below. During the plant establishment period, the constructed
stormwater treatment wetland cell cannot be used for TESC activities.
Multidisciplinary Team
A Multidisciplinary Team is required to provide the breadth of knowledge and experience
necessary to successfully design and construct a stormwater wetland. Approval by all members
of the team is required, starting with design and ending with the final inspection and
acceptance of the constructed stormwater wetland. The team must be identified at the
beginning of the design phase and have the following technical skills represented: HRM
Certified Stormwater Engineer, Materials Engineer, Design Office Representative (during
design), Construction Office Representative (during construction), and Landscape Architect.
The Landscape Architect shall be experienced in specifying constructed stormwater treatment
wetland plants and plant establishment; if not, the Landscape Architect should consult with
a wetland biologist who is knowledgeable in wetland plant inundation depths.
When used for stormwater treatment, stormwater wetlands incorporate some of the same
design features as wet ponds. However, instead of gravity settling being the dominant
treatment process, pollutant removal by aquatic vegetation (and the microbial community
associated with that vegetation) becomes the dominant treatment process. Thus, water volume
is not the dominant design criterion for stormwater wetlands—rather, factors that affect plant
vigor and biomass are the primary concerns.
The PEO must plant the wetland cells with emergent wetland plants following the
recommendations given in Table 5-8 and those of a Landscape Architect. Plants listed in the
table are for western Washington. Use local knowledge to adapt this information for eastern
Washington; this requires approval by the team Landscape Architect. Use local wetlands as
reference wetlands to develop the plant lists and growing depths.

April 2019
Table 5-8 Plants and water depths for western Washington[2] constructed stormwater
treatment wetlands
Species[1] Common Name Design Water Depth[3]

Shrubs
Cornus sericea Red osier dogwood 2 inches
Salix species Willows 4 inches
Spiraea douglasii Hardhack 6 inches
Emergents
Carex obnupta Slough sedge 3 inches
Juncus effuses ssp. pacificus Soft rush 4 inches
Scirpus microcarpus Small-fruited bulrush 3 inches
Schoenoplectus (Scirpus) acutus Hardstem bulrush, tule 18 inches
Schoenoplectus Softstem bulrush, tule 18 inches
(Scirpus)tabernaemontani)
Primary sources: Azous & Horner, 2001, Cooke, 2005, modified by WSDOT staff.
[1] Other species may be appropriate depending on location and site conditions and will require Region Landscape Architect
approval as well.
[2] Plant species, growing season, and other details will need to be adjusted for eastern Washington and the mountains.
[3] Water levels must be controlled during plant establishment as described in the Soil Preparation section. Tops of plants
must be above highest water level. May need larger plants and temporary summer irrigation to accelerate full operation
of facility.
Note: Cattails (Typha latifolia) are not recommended. They tend to crowd out other species
in constructed wetlands, as well as escape to natural wetlands where they do the same. In
addition, the shoots die back each fall, resulting in oxygen depletion in the treatment wetland
unless they are removed.
Maintaining Optimum Soil Moisture
Successful constructed stormwater wetlands rely on thick and vigorous plant communities.
Establishing the plant communities depends on maintaining the optimal soil moisture
throughout the growing season. There are many ways of doing this depending on the site
and availability of water.
This section describes the principle of maintaining the soil moisture necessary to achieve full
wetland operation where plant cover is at least 60% to 80%. The contractor should consider
this principle to develop a Water Management Plan that describes an irrigation source for the
plant establishment period as well as water level control. The plan must be approved by the
multidisciplinary team prior to planting.
Incorrect control of soil moisture is the most frequent cause of failure to establish wetland
plants. Inadequate water results in desiccation of roots. Too much water causes oxygen
depletion in the root zone, submergence and drowning, or flotation of plants, which results
in slow growth or plant death.

April 2019
To maintain adequate soil moisture during plant establishment, the PEO will need a reliable and
adequate supply of water. When feasible, a water source for plant establishment is usually the
stormwater treated in the wetland. However, if stormwater is not available, the PEO must
identify another water source to maximize planting success. If irrigation is used, provide
adequate pumps, piping, and sprinklers or hoses to allow even flow distribution.
According to Kadlec and Knight (1996), the recommended sequence for maintaining soil
moisture for wetland planting starts with initial saturation of soil by sprinkling or flood
irrigation. For optimal plant growth, the soil should be fully or partially saturated with water
immediately before planting and should not be allowed to completely dry out any time after
planting during the plant establishment period. High soil moisture must be maintained after
planting for the first few weeks without creating flooded conditions for more than a few hours.
The best method to maintain soil saturation without excessive flooding is to start planting at
the downgradient end of the wetland and continue planting upgradient, while gradually raising
water levels using the wetland outlet water level controls or gravity drain if possible. When
planting is complete, the PEO can drop or raise water levels as needed to maintain saturated
soil conditions. The PEO can also use sprinklers to irrigate evenly over planted areas.
After an entire cell is planted, maintain the water at a level that ensures all areas of the cell
continue to have saturated soil conditions between waterings. The PEO can achieve this by (1)
flood-irrigating the entire cell with enough water to allow infiltration or evapotranspiration to
eliminate the applied surface water within one or two days, or (2) distributing water through
the inlet distribution structures or down the embankment side slopes and allowing this water
to resaturate the wetland soil as it sheet-flows across the wetland to the outlet. Remove weirs
or outlet water control gates or leave open during plant establishment to prevent flooding if
rainfall is high or if a sprinkler or irrigator is accidentally left running. At no time should flood
irrigation result in complete submergence of aboveground portions of installed plants. Permits
may be required to use water from nearby natural aquatic water bodies for temporary irrigation
purposes.
As the wetland plants grow, they have an increased ability to transport oxygen to the root zone
from their leaves; thus, the plants are able to withstand longer periods of flooding. However,
the best technique for establishing rapid plant cover is to maintain saturated soil conditions
without surface flooding. The higher soil oxygen condition resulting from the absence of
floodwaters allows maximum root metabolism, effective nutrient use, and rapid development
of the plants within the wetland. The PEO should optimally maintain this soil condition until
plants achieve complete cover (100%) or at least the minimum cover required for system
startup (about 60% to 80%).
Design and construction should allow the design water surface to be temporarily modified
to enable plant installation and establishment before the system is brought on-line. Several
strategies may be available depending on the project situation, schedule, and site conditions.
 If the system must go on-line the same year it is constructed, plant the constructed
wetland cell in the spring or early summer and irrigate all summer to maintain
saturated soils without plant submergence or flotation until plants are sufficiently
developed to operate the system in the fall.

April 2019
 If the system can remain off-line all winter, plant the constructed wetland cell
in the fall, monitor water conditions, and maintain saturated soils without plant
submergence or flotation, by irrigating or draining as necessary, until plants are
sufficiently developed to allow operation of the system the following year.
Note: Wetland plants planted later in the summer or fall have their growth
interrupted by cold weather and decreasing day length (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
Several methods could be used to temporarily control water levels during plant establishment,
depending on project conditions.
 Build the treatment wetland before the project is started so that wetland plants
are established before flows are introduced.
 Keep the treatment wetland off-line until wetland plants become established by
bypassing the treatment wetland.
 Temporarily operate the drain of the treatment wetland as the outlet to maintain
water surface elevations below the design water surface level.
 Plant early in the fall or late in the spring when water surface elevations are naturally
lower.
 Pump out water to lower the wetland cell for planting and establishment.
A wetland treatment system can typically begin operation when plant cover is at least 60%
to 80%, which may require at least three to four months of active growth. If this coverage
is achieved during the first growing season after planting, the wetland system can begin
operating during the ensuing fall.
Planting
 Emergent plants should only be planted when water levels are low enough to ensure
plant survival (see Standard Specification 8-02.3(8)). Generally, this is from April 1 to
June 1. Planting outside this window may be acceptable using larger stock plants or
if the water levels in the pond can be drained down; it requires approval by the
multidisciplinary team.
 Locate plants at a minimum density of 3 feet on center, with 18 inches preferred.
 Do not seed the wetland cell below the runoff treatment design water surface
elevation.
 Allow sufficient time in the contract for plant establishment. Typically, emergent
plants require one or two growing seasons and woody plants require at least three
years of plant establishment.
 Seed embankment areas above the runoff treatment design water surface and below
the emergency overflow water level. Areas with permanent pools that are protected
from erosion need not be seeded.

April 2019
 Consider planting conifer or columnar deciduous trees along the west and south
sides of wetlands to reduce thermal heating—except that no trees or shrubs may be
planted on berms meeting the criteria of dams regulated for safety. (However, the PEO
can plant trees and shrubs outside the toe of the berm if there is sufficient right of
way.) In addition to shade, trees and shrubs also discourage waterfowl use and the
attendant phosphorus enrichment problems they cause. Set trees back so that the
branches will not extend over the wetland.
 Include trees and shrubs on slopes and on top of banks to increase aesthetics. If the
treatment wetland discharges to a phosphorus-sensitive lake or natural wetland, plant
shrubs that form a dense cover on slopes above the runoff treatment design water
surface on at least three sides. For banks that are berms, no planting is allowed if
the berm is regulated by dam safety requirements. The purpose of planting is to
discourage waterfowl use of the wetland and to provide shading. Some suitable trees
and shrubs include vine maple (Acer circinatum), wild cherry (Prunus emarginata),
willow (Salix sp.), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), California myrtle (Myrica
californica), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), and Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia).
Soil Amendments and Protection
The method of construction for soil/landscape systems can affect natural selection of specific
plant species. Consult a landscape architect, soil restoration specialist, or wetland soil scientist
for site-specific soil amendment recommendations. The formulation should encourage desired
species and discourage undesired species. Stabilize soils with permanent or temporary cover to
prevent washout due to storm flows.
Provide visual enhancement with clusters of trees and shrubs. On most wetland sites, it is
important to amend the soil before planting because wetlands are typically placed well below
the native soil horizon in very poor soils. Make sure dam safety restrictions against planting
do not apply.
Fencing
Provide side slopes that are sufficiently gentle to avoid the need for fencing (3H:1V or flatter).
For slopes greater than 3H:1V, design side slopes to prevent sloughing of upland landscaping
into the wetland. This may include roughing the side slopes several inches deep using the teeth
of the backhoe bucket prior to placing topsoil, terracing the slopes, or using compost socks
along the contours to hold the topsoil in place.
For general maintenance requirements, see Section 5-3.7.1. Use the following to replace or
supplement the guidelines found in Section 5-3.7.1:
 A drain in the wetland cell (or cells) may also be necessary to avoid surface flooding
during wetland plant installation and establishment. (See the Dewatering and Water
Level Control discussion in the Structural Design Considerations section.)

April 2019
Maintenance Access Road (Access Requirements)

Provide maintenance access to shallow pool areas enhanced with emergent wetland
vegetation. This allows the wetland to be accessible for vegetation maintenance without
incurring safety risks.
Consider extending the access and maintenance road along the full length of the treatment
wetland. Consider placing coarse bark, wood chips, or other permeable surfacing over the
road surface to reduce runoff.
Nuisance Control
Beavers
Information on beaver control can be found at the following website:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/species/castor-canadensis
Mosquitoes
A recent study in California provides evidence that interspersing stands of emergent vegetation
with areas of open water is effective in reducing mosquito production. Areas of relatively deep
open water can decrease vegetation density and limit the accumulation of floating mats of root
masses and dead vegetation. These characteristics were found to reduce mosquito refuge areas
and increase mosquito predator habitat (Thullen et al., 2002).
Signage

April 2019
CO.02 – Combined Stormwater Treatment Wetland/Detention Pond

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
The combined stormwater treatment wetland/detention pond (see Figure 5-38) is best
described as a wetland system that provides for the extended detention of runoff during
and following storm events. This BMP is useful in areas with limited right of way where
separate runoff treatment and flow control facilities are not feasible. It is recommended
that all BMPs that use permanent wetpools use facility liners (see Section 5-4.3.3).
Applications
 As a combination facility, enhanced treatment is provided where metals removal
is a concern and flow control is provided to meet the flow duration standard.
 Stormwater wetlands occupy roughly the same surface area as wet ponds that are
1.5 feet deep, but they have the potential to be better integrated aesthetically into
a site because of the abundance of emergent aquatic vegetation.
 Stormwater wetlands are a good runoff treatment facility choice in areas where
groundwater levels are high in the winter.
Limitations
 The most critical factor for a successful design is an adequate supply of water for most
of the year. Careful planning is needed to ensure sufficient water is retained to sustain
good wetland plant growth.
 Because water depths in stormwater wetlands are shallower than in wet ponds, water
loss by evaporation is an important concern.
 During initial construction and plant establishment, adjusting water levels to ensure
wetland plant growth is critical. The constructed stormwater treatment wetland needs
to have the plants established before being able to treat stormwater.
 The flow control (live storage) is limited to the first cell.

Flows to Be Treated
The sizing procedure for the combined stormwater treatment wetland/detention pond is
identical to that outlined for stormwater wetlands (see BMP RT.13) and for combined wetland/
detention ponds (see BMP CO.01). Follow the procedures outlined in those sections
to determine the stormwater wetland size.

April 2019
Figure 5-38 Combined stormwater treatment wetland/detention pond.

The Structural Design Considerations are the same as for detention ponds (see BMP FC.03)
and constructed stormwater treatment wetlands (see BMP RT.13), except for the following
modifications or clarifications:
Geometry
The minimum sediment storage depth in the first cell is 1 foot. The 6 inches of sediment storage
required for detention ponds does not need to be added to this in the first cell. The 6 inches of
sediment storage in the second cell of detention ponds does not need to be added to the
wetland cell.
Intent: Because emergent plants are limited to shallower water depths, the deeper water
created before sediments accumulate is considered detrimental to robust emergent growth.
Therefore, sediment storage is confined to the first cell, which functions as a presettling cell.
Inlet and Outlet
The inlet and outlet criteria for detention ponds (see BMP FC.03) and constructed stormwater
treatment wetlands (see BMP RT.13) apply, with the following modifications:
 A sump must be provided in the outlet structure of combined facilities.

April 2019
The detention flow restrictor and its outlet pipe must be designed according to the
requirements for detention ponds (see BMP FC.03).
 Limit the detention (live) storage to the presettling cell. In the design approach,
include sizing the presettling cell depth and dead storage volume as described in
Section RT.13. Design the remaining detention storage to fit above the dead storage
with 1 foot of freeboard. Ensure the presettling cell and dividing berm meet
embankment and dam safety guidelines for detention ponds (the BMP FC.03).
 Ensure the outlet pipe from the flow restrictor to the wetland cell has a flow spreader
at the outlet for the full length of the dividing berm. (See Section 5-4.3.5 for flow
spreading options.)
 Locate the primary emergency overflow structure in the first (presettling) cell of the
constructed stormwater treatment wetland to collect and convey detention storage
overflows directly to the pond discharge (bypassing the second wetland cell).

The Site Design Elements are the same as for detention ponds (see BMP FC.03) and constructed
stormwater treatment wetlands (see BMP RT.13).
Signage

April 2019
5-4.1.5 Oil Control BMPs

RT.22 – Oil Containment Boom

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
The oil containment boom is a weather-resistant, hydrophobic, absorbent-filled boom for
removing hydrocarbon sheens from water.
Use oil containment booms to remove oil from stormwater facilities to meet performance goals
at locations where oil control is required, as described in Table 3-1.
Applications
 Fully functional at flow rates exceeding treatment flow criteria
 Easy and complete removal and disposal of absorbed oil
 Higher reliability because sediment clogging is avoided
 Effectiveness easily assessed due to aboveground installation
 Reduced exposure of maintenance workers to traffic and confined-space hazards
 Lower material and labor costs (6 to 17 times lower than oil/water separators, sand
filters, and catch basin inserts)
 No capital improvement costs
 No additional right of way requirements or conflicts with buried structures
Limitations
 Oil booms can only be used with pond-type BMPs.

Geometry
The boom must be cylindrical, with a minimum diameter of 2 inches. It should be installed near
the outlet end of the facility so that the oil has a maximum amount of time to rise to the water
surface. Maximizing boom distance from inlet currents also maximizes contact time between
the boom and the oil. The boom must span the entire width of ponds when they are filled to
capacity. The boom must be placed so that it is in direct contact with the water across the
entire water surface. In treatment ponds, the boom must be installed diagonally across the
water surface to maximize contact area and contact time between hydrocarbons and the
boom. When used in a vault, the boom must completely encircle the outlet structure (see
Figure 5-39).
Materials
The absorbent material must consist of high-molecular-weight polymers capable of absorbing
C5-C18 hydrocarbons associated with fuels, and longer chain hydrocarbons with frequently
attached cyclic hydrocarbon structures associated with lubricating oils.

April 2019
Figure 5-39 Oil containment boom.

The absorbent material must exhibit the following characteristics:
 Absorb and solidify a minimum of three times its weight in liquid hydrocarbons.
 Have sufficient buoyancy at the exhausted condition to continue to trap oil.
 Irreversibly absorb and permanently hold the hydrocarbons so that oil leachate is not
released from the sorbent. U.S. EPA guidelines for solidified hazardous waste without
chemical bonds being formed or broken must also be met.
 Contain a minimum of 99% active ingredient and no leachable toxicant to fish and
other aquatic life. The supplier must provide appropriate information demonstrating
that toxicity will not be a problem.
The absorbent boom cover fabric must meet the following criteria:
 Be sized to allow for the expansion of the absorbent material to hold the specified
absorption volume per foot.
Additional requirements for materials related to booms include the following:
 Booms must include a weather-resistant tag to enable labeling with installation
and inspection dates for tracking long-term effectiveness/maintenance activities.
 Boom ends must be configured so that they can be secured to immobile structures
or metal stakes with weather-resistant rope.

Signage
Refer to Section 5-5.3 for signing requirements. “Oil Containment Boom” should be added
to the stormwater BMP sticker.

April 2019
5-4.2 Flow Control Methods

The primary function of the BMPs listed in this section is to meet Minimum Requirement 6
(Flow Control) in Section 3-2.6.

IN.01 – Bioinfiltration Pond (eastern Washington only)

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Bioinfiltration ponds, also known as bioinfiltration swales or grass percolation areas, combine
grasses (or other vegetation) and soils to remove stormwater pollutants by percolation into
the ground. Their pollutant-removal mechanisms include filtration, soil sorption, and uptake by
vegetative root zones. Bioinfiltration ponds have been used in Spokane County for many years
to treat urban stormwater and recharge the groundwater.
In general, bioinfiltration ponds are used for treating stormwater runoff from roofs, roads,
and parking lots. Flows greater than the design treatment flow typically overflow through an
appropriate conveyance system to a higher permeability (flow control) infiltration BMP such
as a drywell or infiltration pond or to a surface water discharge point with flow control as
necessary (see Figure 5-40). Note: Underground injection control (UIC) regulations apply
to the drywell.
Applications
 Use bioinfiltration ponds to meet basic and enhanced runoff treatment objectives and
oil control for high-use roads (see Table 3-1).
 Use the bioinfiltration pond design only in eastern Washington.
Limitations
 Although bioinfiltration ponds treat runoff by infiltration through soil, the infiltration
capacity of these facilities is usually not sufficient to provide flow control to meet
the criteria of Minimum Requirement 6 in Section 3-3.6. Unless a very large area is
available for the shallow water depth required of a bioinfiltration pond, the PEO must
implement flow control using a different facility.
 Bioinfiltration ponds require moderately permeable soil for proper function. For
general site suitability criteria for infiltration facilities, see BMP IN.02, Infiltration
Pond. Additional criteria for runoff treatment are presented in Section 4-5.1.
 Consider pretreatment to prevent the bioinfiltration pond treatment soil from
clogging. (See Section 5-4.3.1 for pretreatment design criteria.)
LID Feasibility
 Same as infiltration ponds (see BMP IN.02).

Flows to Be Treated
Bioinfiltration ponds are designed as volume-based infiltration treatment facilities. The runoff
volume to be treated by a bioinfiltration pond is based on hydrologic models, such as SCS or
SBUH. Design storm volumes are discussed in Section 3-2.5 under Minimum Requirement 5,
and hydrologic methods are presented in Section 4-5.

April 2019

Geometry
Bioinfiltration pond sizing methods are the same as those for infiltration ponds (see BMP IN.02)
designed for runoff treatment, except for the following:
 Drawdown time for the maximum ponded volume is 72 hours (maximum) following
the design storm event.
 The pond shall be designed to contain the runoff treatment volume from the 6-month
24-hour storm, below the first 6 inches in the pond.
 The swale bottom should be flat with a longitudinal slope less than 1%.
 A concrete or riprap apron shall be provided at the curb opening to prevent
vegetation from blocking the inlet.
 The treatment soil should be at least 6 inches thick with a cation exchange capacity
(CEC) of at least 5 milliequivalents per 100 grams of dry soil, organic content of at
least 1%, and sufficient target pollutant-loading capacity (see Criteria for Assessing
the Trace Element Removal Capacity of Bio-filtration Systems, Stan Miller, Spokane
County, June 2000).
 Other combinations of treatment soil thickness, CEC, and organic content design
factors may be considered if it is demonstrated that the soil and vegetation will
provide a target pollutant-loading capacity and performance level acceptable to
the local jurisdiction.
 The treatment zone depth of 6 inches or more should contain sufficient organics
and texture to ensure good vegetation growth.
 The average infiltration rate of the 6-inch-thick layer of treatment soil should not
exceed 1 inch/hour for a system relying on the root zone to enhance pollutant
removal. Furthermore, a maximum infiltration rate of 9.0 inches per hour is
applicable and the site suitability criteria in Section 4-5.1 must also be applied.
 Native grasses, adapted grasses, or other vegetation with significant root mass should
be used. For eastern Washington, grasses should be drought tolerant or irrigation
should be provided.
 Pretreatment may be used to prevent clogging of the treatment soil and vegetation
by debris, TSS, and oil and grease.
Identify pollutants, particularly in industrial and commercial area runoff, that could cause a
violation of the Ecology groundwater quality standards (WAC 173-200). Include appropriate
mitigation measures (for example, pretreatment or source control) for the pollutants.
Materials
For runoff treatment, soils must meet the criteria described in BMP IN.02, Infiltration Pond, and
the Site Suitability Criteria in Section 4-5.1.

April 2019
Figure 5-40 Bioinfiltration pond.

April 2019

Groundwater Issues
Groundwater issues for bioinfiltration ponds are the same as those for infiltration ponds (see
BMP IN.02).
Setback requirements for bioinfiltration ponds are the same as those for infiltration ponds (see
BMP IN.02).
Consider the potential impact of roadway deicers on potable water wells when siting the
bioinfiltration pond. Implement mitigation measures if infiltration of roadway deicers could
cause a violation of groundwater quality standards.
Conduct initial excavation to within 1 foot of the final elevation of the floor of the bioinfiltration
pond. Defer final excavation to the finished grade until all disturbed areas in the upgradient
drainage area have been stabilized or protected. The final phase of excavation should remove
all accumulated sediment. After construction is completed, prevent sediment from entering the
bioinfiltration pond by first conveying the runoff water through an appropriate pretreatment
system such as a presettling basin.
As with all types of infiltration facilities, the PEO should generally not use bioinfiltration ponds
as temporary sediment traps during construction. If a bioinfiltration pond is to be used as a
sediment trap, do not excavate to final grade until after the PEO stabilizes the upgradient
drainage area. Remove any accumulation of silt in the swale before putting the swale into
service.
Relatively light-tracked equipment is recommended for excavation to avoid compacting the
floor of the bioinfiltration pond. Consider the use of draglines and trackhoes. The bioinfiltration
pond area should be flagged or marked to keep equipment away.
Use native or adapted grass species for the entire area of the bioinfiltration pond.
Access requirements for bioinfiltration ponds are the same as those for infiltration ponds
(see BMP IN.02).
Signage

April 2019
IN.02 – Infiltration Pond
Description: Used for collection,

temporary storage, and infiltration
of stormwater runoff to
groundwater. For flow control
and can be designed to provide
runoff treatment.
Floor Slope ≤ 3%
Interior Embankment 3H:1V
Exterior Embankment 2H:1V
Desirable Depth 3'
Max Depth 6'
Freeboard 1' Min
Infiltration Pond Along I-90 in Spokane County
BMP Function
 LID Effective Life (Years)
 Flow Control
 Runoff Treatment*
 5-10
 Phosphorus
 TSS - Basic  Moderate  Moderate
 4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria  Soil Amendments/Compost
 Setback  Energy Dissipater/Level Spreader
 Landscaping/Planting  5-4.3.3 Facility Liners
 Inlet and Outlet Spacing  Fencing
 Overflow  Presettling/Pretreatment
 Multidisciplinary Team  Underdrain
 WSDOT Pavement Engineer Approval  Soil Preparation

 Vactor Truck Access
  Fecal Coliform
 Mowing
  Phosphorus
 Valve Access
  Nitrogen
 Specialized Equipment
  Temperature
 Specialized Training
  Dissolved Metals
  Dissolved Oxygen 5-3.7.1 and 5.5. Also see Table 5-13.
  pH
  Oil/Grease
  PAHs *Pretreatment must be provided with a
presettling basic (RT.24) or any basic
  Pesticides treatment BMP listed in step 7 of Figure 5-3.
guidance.

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Infiltration ponds for flow control are earthen impoundments used for the collection,
temporary storage, and infiltration of incoming stormwater runoff to groundwater (see Figure
5-41). Infiltration ponds can also be designed to provide runoff treatment (see Section 4-5.1).
Applications
n Infiltration of runoff is the preferred method of flow control. Runoff in excess of the
infiltration capacity must be detained and released in compliance with the flow control
requirement described in Section 3-2.6 under Minimum Requirement 6.
n The infiltration BMP may be able to provide runoff treatment per Minimum
Requirement 5 if the Site Suitability Criteria can be met (see Section 4-5.1 for
more information).
n Infiltration ponds must be preceded by a runoff treatment or pretreatment facility to
prevent sediment buildup and clogging of the infiltrative soils. A presettling cell can be
included in the infiltration pond design, as shown in Figure 5-41. (See BMP RT.24,
Presettling Basin, for design criteria.) If an infiltration pond cannot meet the site
suitability criteria for treatment, a minimum of basic treatment must be provided prior
to infiltration.
Limitations
 Infiltration ponds require permeable soil conditions for proper function. For runoff
treatment, SSC 5 specifies the maximum infiltration rate. For flow control, the
minimum infiltration rate at which a single infiltration BMP would be considered
adequate is 0.3 inches/hour. If the infiltration rate at the flow control BMP site is less
than 0.3 inches/hour, the Region Hydraulics Engineer needs to review and approve the
infiltration BMP design. Since the infiltration rate is so low, an assessment of the
design needs to be done to factor in long term performance and maintenance. The
risk of the BMP failing is high.
 See the site suitability criteria are specified in Section 4-5.1.
LID Feasibility
 An infiltration pond is a LID BMP. Certain site characteristics may make siting an
infiltration BMP infeasible. (See Section 4-5.2 for LID feasibility criteria.)

April 2019
Figure 5-41 Infiltration pond.

April 2019

Flows to Be Infiltrated
See Table 3-6 for western Washington and Table 3-7 for eastern Washington.

Geometry
Design the infiltration pond with a minimum freeboard of 1 foot above the design water level (1
foot above the 50-year water surface elevation for western Washington and 1 foot above the
25-year water surface elevation for eastern Washington).
The slope of the floor of an infiltration pond must not exceed 3% in any direction.
Eastern Washington – For cold climate infiltration pond design criteria, refer to Ecology’s
SWMMEW.
Embankments
Requirements for infiltration pond embankments are the same as those for BMP FC.03,
Detention Pond. In addition, the site geotechnical investigation must include:
 Stability analysis of side slopes for ponds and the potential to activate landslides in the
vicinity of the facility during construction or during service.
 Seepage analysis of any berms or dams required by the facility to retain stormwater.
Liners
The PEO can cover the floor of infiltration ponds with a 6- to 12-inch layer of filter material such
as coarse sand, or use a suitable filter fabric liner to help prevent buildup of impervious
deposits on the soil surface. Select a nonwoven geotextile that functions sufficiently without
plugging (see underground drainage geotextile specifications in Section 9-33 of the Standard
Specifications). With this underlying geotextile, the filter layer can be readily replaced or
cleaned if it becomes clogged.
Outlet Control Structure
If the infiltration pond has surface runoff before infiltrating the required flows (see Flows to Be
Infiltrated above), detain runoff in excess of the infiltration capacity and release it in compliance
with the flow control requirement described in Section 3-2.6 under Minimum Requirement 6.
Outlet control structure design criteria are provided in BMP FC.03, Detention Pond.
If the infiltration pond has surface runoff before infiltrating the required flows (see Flows to Be
Infiltrated above), construct a nonerodible outlet or spillway with a firmly established elevation
to discharge overflow to the downstream conveyance system, as described in BMP FC.03,
Detention Pond. Calculate ponding depth, drawdown time, and storage volume from
the overflow elevation.

April 2019
Design Method
For a web link to examples of infiltration pond design and associated spreadsheets, see
Appendix 4A. Note that they are separated into western Washington examples using MGSFlood
and eastern Washington examples using StormShed.

Groundwater Issues
Refer to Site Suitability Criteria #3 specified in Section 4-5.1.
Setback requirements for infiltration ponds are generally required by local regulations, Uniform
Building Code requirements, or other state regulations. The following setback criteria are
provided as guidelines:
 For infiltration facilities, request from the WSDOT Materials Lab a geotechnical report
for the project that evaluates any potential structural site instability due to extended
subgrade saturation and/or head loading of the permeable layer, including the
potential impacts to downgradient properties, especially on hills with known side-hill
seeps. The report should address the adequacy of the proposed infiltration pond
locations and recommend the necessary setbacks from any steep slopes and building
foundations.
Refer to Site Suitability Criteria #1 specified in Section 4-5.1.
Conduct the initial excavation to within 1 foot of the final elevation of the infiltration pond
floor. Defer the final excavation to the finished grade until the PEO stabilizes or protect all
disturbed areas in the upgradient drainage area. The final phase of excavation should remove
all accumulated sediment.
As with all types of infiltration facilities, the PEO generally should not use infiltration ponds
as temporary sediment traps during construction. If an infiltration pond is to be used as a
sediment trap, do not excavate it to final grade until after the upgradient drainage area has
been stabilized. Remove any accumulation of silt in the pond before the pond is put into
service.
Low-ground-pressure equipment is recommended for excavation to avoid compacting the
floor of the infiltration pond. Consider the use of draglines and trackhoes. Flag or mark the
infiltration area to keep equipment away.
Stabilize and plant, preferably with grass, the interior of the infiltration pond, as well as
surrounding berms, spoil areas, borrow areas, and other disturbed areas. Without healthy
vegetation, the surface soil pores quickly plug. The use of slow-growing, stoloniferous grasses
permits long intervals between mowing. Refer to BMP FC.03, Detention Pond, for seed mixture
recommendations.

April 2019
Fencing
Fencing requirements for an infiltration pond are identical to those of BMP FC.03, Detention
Pond.
For infiltration ponds, as with all BMPs, the PEO must design routine inspection and
maintenance into the life performance of the facility. (See Section 5-5 for more details.)
Refer to Section 5-3.7.1 for maintenance requirements.
Signage

April 2019
IN.03 – Infiltration Trench

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Infiltration trenches are long, narrow, stone-filled trenches used for the collection, temporary
storage, and infiltration of stormwater runoff to groundwater. They can be a useful alternative
for sites with constraints that make siting an infiltration pond difficult. Infiltration trenches may
be placed beneath parking areas, along the site periphery, or in other suitable linear areas. They
may also be designed for runoff treatment (see Section 4-5.1). For infiltration trench concept
details, see Figures 5-42 through 5-46.
 Infiltration trenches have the same applications, limitations, and LID feasibility as
those for infiltration ponds (see BMP IN.02).
 Infiltration trenches should follow a runoff treatment or pretreatment facility to
prevent sediment accumulation and clogging of the trench. (See Section 5-4.3.1
for pretreatment design criteria.)
 An infiltration trench is considered a subsurface infiltration facility and its use may
be subject to the rules governing Class V underground injection wells, but only if
it includes the use of a perforated pipe. This type of stormwater facility must be
registered through Ecology’s UIC (Underground Injection Control) Program. For
more information on UIC requirements, see Section 4-5.4 for pretreatment
requirements for UIC facilities.

April 2019
Source: Schueler.
Figure 5-42 Parking lot perimeter trench design.

April 2019
Source: Schueler.
Figure 5-43 Infiltration trench system.

April 2019
Source: Schueler.
Figure 5-44 Median strip trench design.

April 2019
Source: Schueler.
Figure 5-45 Oversize pipe trench design.

April 2019
Source: Schueler
Figure 5-46 Underground trench and oil/grit chamber.

The flows to be treated by an infiltration trench are identical to those for BMP IN.02, Infiltration
Pond.
If the infiltration trench uses a perforated pipe, see Section 4-5.4 for Underground Injection
Facilities criteria for flows to be infiltrated and pretreatment requirements.

Geometry
There is no freeboard requirement for an infiltration trench.
The slope of the infiltration trench must not exceed 3% in any direction.
The trench width should be designed with maintenance in mind. For example, if the trench
needs to be excavated in the future, the width of the trench should match the width of the
bucket of the tractor used for maintenance.

April 2019
Materials
Backfill Material
Use gravel backfill for drywells (WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-03.12(5)) for the backfill
material for the infiltration trench. Void space for the gravel backfill should be in the range of
30% to 40%. See Construction Criteria below for recommendations on level of compaction to
achieve the void space target.
Geotextile Fabric Liner
An engineering geotextile material must encase all of the backfill material, except for the top 1
foot of the trench where the backfill material is the final ground condition. Geotextile fabric
with acceptable properties must be carefully selected to avoid plugging. (See geotextile for
underground drainage in Section 9-33 of the Standard Specifications.) The bottom sand or
geotextile fabric shown in Figures 5-42 through 5-44 is optional.
Refer to Section 5-6, References, for publications by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) (1995) regarding design criteria on geotextiles in drainage applications. Also, see the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) (1994) for long-term performance
data and background on the potential for geotextiles to clog or blind and for piping to be
incorporated and how to design for these issues.
Observation Well
Install an observation well at the lower end of the infiltration trench to check water levels,
drawdown time, and sediment accumulation, and to allow for water quality monitoring. The
well should consist of a perforated PVC pipe 4 to 6 inches in diameter, constructed flush with
the ground elevation. For larger trenches, the PEO can install a 12- to 36-inch-diameter well to
facilitate maintenance operations such as pumping out trapped sediment. Cap the top of
the well to discourage vandalism and tampering (see Figure 5-47).
Flow Splitters
Flow splitter requirements for an infiltration trench are identical to those for BMP IN.02,
Infiltration Pond.
Outlet control structure requirements for an infiltration trench are identical to those for
BMP IN.02, Infiltration Pond.
Overflow or Bypass
Because infiltration trenches are generally used for small drainage areas, an emergency spillway
is not necessary. However, the PEO should provide a non-erosive overflow channel leading to a
stabilized watercourse.
Design Method
See Figures 4D-3 and 4D-4 in Appendix 4D for the general infiltration trench design method. For
a web link to examples of infiltration trench design and associated spreadsheets, see Appendix

April 2019
4A. Note that they are separated into western Washington examples using MGSFlood and
eastern Washington examples using StormShed3G.

Groundwater Issues
Groundwater issues for an infiltration trench are identical to those for BMP IN.02, Infiltration
Pond.
Setback requirements for an infiltration trench are identical to those for BMP IN.02, Infiltration
Pond.
Trench Preparation
Place excavated materials away from the trench sides to enhance trench wall stability. Take
care to keep this material away from slopes, neighboring property, sidewalks, and streets.
It is recommended that the PEO cover this material with plastic.
Gravel Backfill for Drywell Placement and Compaction
Place the gravel backfill for drywell in lifts and compact to 90% maximum density using plate
compactors. As a rule of thumb, a maximum loose lift thickness of 12 inches is recommended.
The compaction process ensures geotextile conformity to the excavation sides, thereby
reducing potential piping and geotextile clogging, as well as settlement problems.
Gravel Backfill for Drywell Separation from Surrounding Soil
Ensure natural or fill soils do not intermix with the gravel backfill for drywell material. If the
gravel backfill for drywell material becomes mixed with the soil, the PEO must remove the
gravel backfill for drywell material and replace it with uncontaminated gravel backfill for
drywell material.
Overlapping and Covering
Following the gravel backfill for drywell placement and compaction, the PEO must fold the
geotextile over the gravel backfill for drywell to form a 12-inch-minimum longitudinal overlap.
When overlaps are required between rolls, overlap the upstream roll a minimum of 2 feet over
the downstream roll to provide a shingled effect.
Voids Behind Geotextile
Avoid voids between the geotextile and excavation sides. The space left by boulders or other
obstacles removed from the trench walls is one source of such voids. Place natural soils in these
voids at the most convenient time during construction to ensure geotextile conformity to the
excavation sides. The PEO can avoid soil piping, geotextile clogging, and possible surface
subsidence by this remedial process.

April 2019
Unstable Excavation Sites

Vertically excavated walls may be difficult to maintain in areas where the soil moisture is high
or where soft or cohesionless soils predominate. Trapezoidal, rather than rectangular, cross
sections may be needed.
Conduct the initial excavation to within 1 foot of the final elevation of the infiltration pond
floor. Defer the final excavation to the finished grade until the PEO stabilizes or protects all
disturbed areas in the upgradient drainage area. The final phase of excavation should remove
all accumulated sediment.
As with all types of infiltration facilities, the PEO should generally not use infiltration trenches
as temporary sediment traps during construction. If an infiltration trench is to be used as a
sediment trap, do not excavate it to final grade until after the upgradient drainage area has
been stabilized. Remove any accumulation of silt in the trench before the trench is put into
service.
If the PEO uses topsoil at the top of the trench, hydroseed to prevent erosion and improve
surface infiltration opportunities.
Source: King County.

Figure 5-47 Observation well detail.

April 2019

For infiltration trenches, as with all BMPs, the PEO must design routine inspection and
Because of accessibility and maintenance limitations, the PEO must carefully design and
construct infiltration trenches. Contact the local jurisdiction for additional specifications.
Consider an access port or an open or grated top to permit access for inspections and
maintenance.
For general maintenance requirements, see Section 5-3.7.1.
Signage

April 2019
IN.04 – Infiltration Vault
Description: Bottomless
underground structures used for
temporary storage and infiltration of
stormwater runoff to groundwater.
May be modified for runoff treatment.
Limit to sites where infiltration ponds
cannot be located due to site
constraints.
Infiltration Vault along SR 303 in Kitsap County

BMP Function
 LID Effective Life (Years)
 Flow Control  5-10
 Phosphorus
 TSS - Basic  Moderate  Moderate to High
 4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria  Soil Amendments/Compost
 Landscaping/Planting  5-4.3.3 Facility Liners
 Overflow  Presettling/Pretreatment

  Fecal Coliform  Vactor Truck Access
  Phosphorus
 Mowing
  Nitrogen  Valve Access
Temperature  Specialized Equipment
 
  Dissolved Oxygen 5-3.7.1 and 5.5. Also, see Tables 5-13 and
  pH 5-14.
  Oil/Grease
  PAHs *Pretreatment must be provided with a presettling
  Pesticides basin (RT.24) or any basic treatment BMP listed
in step 7 of Figure 5-3.
guidance.

April 2019
IN.05 – Drywell
Description: Subsurface
concrete structure that
conveys stormwater runoff
into the soil.
Part of a larger drainage
system (overflow for a
bioinfiltration pond).
Drywell installed along the North

Spokane Corridor in Spokane
BMP Function
LID
 Effective Life (Years)
Flow Control*
  5-20

Runoff Treatment
Oil Control Capital Cost O & M Cost
 Phosphorus
 TSS - Basic  Low to Moderate  Low to Moderate
 Dissolved Metals - Enhanced
4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria Soil Amendments/Compost
Setback
S Energy Dissipater/Level Spreader
Landscaping/Planting 5-4.3.3 Facility Liners
Wetland Planting and Plant Establishment 5-4.3.7 Signing
Inlet and Outlet Spacing Fencing
 Overflow Presettling/Pretreatment
Multidisciplinary Team Underdrain
 WSDOT Pavement Engineer Approval Soil Preparation

Avoid Preferred Access Roads or Pullouts
  Fecal Coliform Vactor Truck Access
  Phosphorus Mowing
  Nitrogen Valve Access
  Temperature  Specialized Equipment
  Dissolved Metals Specialized Training
  Total Suspended Solids/Turbidity Further Requirements: See Sections
  Dissolved Oxygen 5-3.7.1 and 5.5.
  pH
  Oil/Grease *Drywells are intended for use with a flow
control facility and should not be used as a
  PAHs stand-alone BMP.
  Pesticides
guidance.

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Drywells are subsurface concrete structures, typically precast, that convey treated stormwater
runoff into the soil matrix. They can be used as stand-alone structures or as part of a larger
drainage system (for example, the overflow for a bioinfiltration pond).
 Drywells have the same applications, limitations, and LID feasibility as infiltration
ponds (see BMP IN.02).
 A drywell is considered a subsurface infiltration facility and its use is subject to the
rules governing Class V underground injection wells. This type of stormwater facility
must be registered through Ecology’s UIC (Underground Injection Control) Program.
For more information on UIC requirements, see Section 4-5.4 for pretreatment
requirements for UIC facilities.
 Treatment for removal of total suspended solids (TSS), oil, and soluble pollutants is
necessary before the stormwater is conveyed to a drywell. Companion practices, such
as street sweeping and catch basin inserts, can provide additional benefits and reduce
the cleaning and maintenance needs for the infiltration facility.
 Drywells may be used for flow control where runoff treatment is not required, for
flows greater than the runoff treatment design storm, or where runoff is treated
before it is discharged. (See Section 4-5.4 for determining when treatment is required
prior to infiltration.)
Uncontaminated or properly treated stormwater must be discharged to drywells in accordance
with Ecology’s UIC Program (WAC 173-218).

Calculate inflow to infiltration facilities according to the methods described in Chapter 4. The
storage volume in the detention facility above the drywell is used to detain runoff prior to
infiltration. Use the infiltration rate in conjunction with the size of the storage area to design
the facility. To prevent the onset of anaerobic conditions, the PEO must design the infiltration
facility to drain completely 72 hours after the flow to it has stopped.
In general, an infiltration facility should have two discharge modes. The primary mode of
discharge is infiltration into the ground. However, when the infiltration capacity of the facility
is reached, a secondary discharge mode is needed to prevent overflow. Overflows from an
infiltration facility must comply with Minimum Requirement 6 in Section 3-3.6.
The flows to be disposed to groundwater by drywells are the same as those for infiltration
ponds (see BMP IN.02).

April 2019

Geometry
The Standard Plans show typical details for drywell systems. These systems are designed as
specified below:
 Ensure drywell bottoms are a minimum of 5 feet above seasonal high groundwater
level or impermeable soil layers. Refer to the Setback Requirements below.
 Note that, typically, drywells are 48 inches (minimum) in diameter and are
approximately 5 to 10 feet (or more) deep.
 Place filter fabric (geotextile), if necessary, on top of the drain rock and on trench or
drywell sides before the drywell is backfilled to prevent migration of fines into the
drain rock, depending on local soil conditions and local jurisdiction requirements.
 Space drywells no closer than 30 feet center to center or twice the structure depth
in free-flowing soils, whichever is greater.
 Do not build drywells on slopes greater than 25% (4H:1V).
 Do not place drywells on or above a landslide hazard area or slopes greater than 15%
without evaluation by a professional engineer with geotechnical expertise, or a
qualified geologist, and approval by the local jurisdiction.
Overflow or Bypass
Provide a primary overflow to bypass the 100-year postdeveloped peak flow over or around the
flow restrictor system.
Design Method
See Figure 4D-3 and 4D-4 in Appendix 4D for the general design method for dry wells. The
design procedure for drywells originated from a design based on soil types prevalent in
Spokane County. This research helped to determine a more accurate drywell design based on
soils typically found throughout eastern Washington and deep groundwater tables. Steps for
this procedure are as follows:
1. Estimate volume of stormwater, Vdesign.
For eastern Washington, the PEO can use a single-event hydrograph or value for the
volume, which allows the PEO to conduct a modeling approach such as StormShed3G. For
western Washington, the PEO should generally use a continuous hydrograph, which
requires a model such as MGSFlood to perform the calculations. (See Section 4-3 for
western Washington methodology and Section 4-4 for eastern Washington methodology.)
2. Determine the average saturated hydraulic conductivity as noted in Section 4D-4.

April 2019
3. Estimate the uncorrected steady-state infiltration rate for drywells.

The results of the computer simulations included in Massmann (2004) were used to develop
regression equations relating steady-state flow rates with saturated hydraulic conductivity
values and the depth to groundwater. The following two regression equations were derived
from the results of these computer simulations:
Double-barrel wells: Q = K[3.55ln(Dwt) + 12.32] (E-27)
Single-barrel wells: Q = K[1.34ln(Dwt) + 8.81] (E-28)
where: Q = the infiltration rate in cfs

K = the average saturated hydraulic conductivity value in ft/minute
Dwt = the depth from the bottom of the drywell to groundwater in feet
Estimate uncorrected steady-state infiltration rates for single- and double-barrel
configurations using the regression equations given in Equations E-27 and E-28.
4. Apply correction factor for siltation.
Siltation and plugging may reduce the equivalent saturated hydraulic conductivity values
of the facilities by an order of magnitude or more. This will result in a corresponding
reduction in infiltration rate. If the PEO cannot provide pretreatment, reduce the design
infiltration rates calculated in Step 3 above by a factor on the order of 0.5 or less.
5. Size the facility.
Follow the draw down time requirements in the Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) 6 in Section 4-
5.1 for eastern and western Washington drywell design. Calculate the time required for the
storm volume Vdesign from Step 1 above to go through the drywell with infiltration rate Q
from Step 3 above. The draw down time is calculated by dividing the storm volume by the
infiltration rate Vdesign/Q. The draw down time must be less than or equal to that specified in
SSC6.
6. Construct the facility.
Maintain and monitor the facility for performance in accordance with the Maintenance
Manual.

Groundwater Issues
A site is not suitable if the infiltration of stormwater may cause a violation of Ecology
groundwater quality standards. Consult local jurisdictions for applicable pollutant-removal
requirements upstream of the infiltration facility and to determine whether the site is
located in an aquifer-sensitive area, sole-source aquifer, or a wellhead protection zone.
Consider a drywell for runoff collection from those areas requiring oil control (see Table 3-1).
For such applications, provide sufficient pollutant removal, including oil removal, upstream
of the infiltration facility to prevent violations of groundwater quality standards and adverse
effects on the infiltration facility.

April 2019
Vadose Zone Requirements

As mentioned under Geometry, the base of all infiltration systems should be at least 5 feet
above the seasonal high water level, bedrock (or hardpan), or other low-permeability layer.
The base of the facility may be within 3 feet if the PEO judges the groundwater mounding
analysis, volumetric receptor capacity, and design of the overflow or bypass structures to be
adequate to prevent overtopping and meet the site suitability criteria.
Investigate whether the soil under the proposed infiltration facility contains contaminants that
could be transported by infiltration from the facility. If so, take measures to remediate the site
before the facility is constructed or choose an alternative location. The PEO should also
determine whether the soil beneath the proposed infiltration facility is unstable due to
improper placement of fill, subsurface geologic features, or other reasons. If so, undertake
further investigation and planning before siting the facility.
Setback requirements for drywells are the same as those for infiltration ponds (see BMP IN.02).
For infiltration vaults, as with all BMPs, the PEO must design routine inspection and
Refer to Section 5-3.7.1 for general maintenance requirements.
Signage
Refer to Section 5-5.3 for signing requirements

April 2019
IN.06 – Permeable Pavement Surfaces
Description: The pervious concrete

or asphalt pavement surface is an
open-graded mix placed in a manner
that results in a high degree of
interstitial spaces or voids within the
cemented aggregate. This
technique allows runoff to infiltrate
through to the subsoils.
Limited to pedestrians and light to
Test Section of Pervious Pavement at Anacortes medium-load parking areas.
Ferry Terminal
BMP Function*
*Currently, this BMP cannot be
 LID considered a stand-alone runoff Effective Life (Years)
treatment BMP. A sand filter or soils
 Flow Control
 Runoff Treatment
meeting the Site Suitability Criteria 5  --
and 7 must be beneath the Pervious
 Oil Control Pavement. See the SWMMWW BMP
Capital Cost O & M Cost
 Phosphorus T5.15 for more details on how to
 TSS - Basic
design Pervious Pavement as part of
a BMP treatment train for runoff
 Medium  High
 Dissolved Metals - Enhanced treatment.
 4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria  Soil Amendments/Compost
 Landscaping/Planting  5-4.3.3 Facility Liners
 WSDOT Pavement Engineer Approval  Soil Preparation

Avoid Preferred  Access Roads or Pullouts
  Fecal Coliform  Vactor Truck Access
  Phosphorus  Mowing
  Nitrogen  Valve Access
  Temperature  Specialized Equipment
  Dissolved Oxygen 5-3.7.1 and 5-5. Consult WSDOT
  pH Maintenance for guidance.
  Oil/Grease
  PAHs
  Pesticides
guidance.

April 2019

FC.01 – Natural Dispersion

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Natural dispersion is the simplest method of flow control and runoff treatment. This BMP can
be used for impervious or pervious surfaces that are graded to avoid concentrating flows.
Natural dispersion uses the existing vegetation, soils, and topography to effectively provide
flow control and runoff treatment. It generally requires little or no construction activity. Site
selection is very important to the success of this BMP. The pollutant-removal processes include
infiltration into the existing soils and through vegetation root zones; evaporation; and uptake
and transpiration by the vegetation.
The key to natural dispersion is that flows from the impervious area enter the natural
dispersion area as sheet flow. Because stormwater enters the dispersion area as sheet flow,
it only needs to traverse a narrow band of contiguous vegetation for effective attenuation
and treatment. The goal is to have the flows dispersed into the surrounding landscape such
that there is a low probability any surface runoff will reach a flowing body of water.
Using natural dispersion on projects will result in benefits when determining applicable
minimum requirements and thresholds. The PEO should account for new impervious surfaces
that drain to dispersion areas when determining the project’s total new impervious surface area,
but count the area as a noneffective impervious surface (and noneffective PGIS). When
modeling the hydrology of the project site and threshold discharge area, treat natural dispersion
areas and their tributary drainage areas as disconnected from the project site because they do
not contribute flow to other flow control or runoff treatment BMPs.
Applications
n Natural dispersion is ideal for highways and linear roadway projects.
n There are two types of natural dispersion: sheet flow dispersion and channelized
dispersion.
n Natural dispersion helps maintain the temperature norms of stormwater because it
promotes infiltration, evaporation, and transpiration and should not have a surface
discharge to a lake or stream.
n Natural dispersion areas meet basic, enhanced runoff treatment, oil control, and
phosphorus criteria set forth in Minimum Requirement 5 (Runoff Treatment) in
Section 3.2.5.
n Natural dispersion areas meet flow control criteria set forth in Minimum
Requirement 6 (Flow Control) in Section 3.2.6.
Limitations
 The effectiveness of natural dispersion relies on maintaining sheet flow to the
dispersion area, which maximizes soil and vegetation contact and prevents short-
circuiting due to channelized flow. If the PEO cannot maintain sheet flow, natural
dispersion will not be effective.

April 2019
 The PEO must protect natural dispersion areas from future development. (See the Site
Design Elements section of this BMP.) WSDOT may ultimately have to purchase right
of way or easements to satisfy the criteria for natural dispersion areas, but this should
be the last option the PEO chooses.
 Note that natural dispersion areas may initially cost as much as other constructed
BMPs (ponds or vaults) because right of way or easements often need to be
purchased, but long-term maintenance costs are lower. These natural areas will
also contribute to the preservation of native habitat and provide visual buffering
of the roadway.
 Refer to the Glossary for “noneffective PGIS” and “noneffective impervious surfaces”
to see how existing natural dispersion areas are analyzed with respect to minimum
requirements. This does not apply to engineered dispersion.
 Do not use natural dispersion for floodplains. In these situations, contact the RHE or
HQ Hydraulics Section.
The following are additional limitations for sites where runoff is channelized upstream of the
dispersion area:
 Redisperse the channelized flow before entering the natural dispersion area. Dispersal
BMPs create sheet flow conditions.
 The PEO may need to provide energy dissipaters in conjunction with dispersal BMPs to
prevent high velocities through the natural dispersion areas.
 Channelized flows are limited to on-site flows. The PEO may need parallel conveyance
systems to separate off-site flows. There may be situations where it might be more
beneficial to disperse off-site flows. In these situations, contact the RHE or HQ
Hydraulics Section.
LID Feasibility
The following criteria describe conditions that make natural dispersion infeasible to meet the
LID requirement. Additional general LID feasibility criteria that apply to all other LID-type BMPs
can be found in Section 4-5, along with the site suitability criteria for infiltration design in
Section 4-5.1. The project may still use natural dispersion to meet the runoff treatment
requirement (Minimum Requirement 5). Citation of any of the following infeasibility criteria
must be based on an evaluation of site-specific conditions, must be documented using the
LID feasibility checklist, and should be included in the project’s Hydraulic Report, along with
any applicable written recommendations from an appropriate licensed professional (e.g.,
engineer, geologist, hydrogeologist):
 Where the site cannot be reasonably designed to locate natural dispersion on slopes
less than 33%.

April 2019

Flows to Be Dispersed
Natural dispersion areas are suited to handle stormwater from tributary areas so that ideally
there is no runoff leaving the natural dispersion area.

Siting Criteria
The key to natural dispersions is having vegetative land cover with a good established root
zone where the roots, organic matter, and soil macroorganisms provide macropores to reduce
surface compaction and prevent soil pore sealing. The vegetative cover also provides filtration
and maintains sheet flow, reducing the chance for erosion. The following areas are considered
appropriate candidates for natural dispersion because they are likely to retain these vegetative
conditions over the long term:
 WSDOT rights of way
 Protected beautification areas
 Agricultural areas
 State parks
 Commercial or government-owned forest lands
 Rural areas with zoned densities of less than one dwelling unit per 5 acres
Note: Though natural dispersion areas should be adjacent to the project site, they do not have
to be immediately adjacent to the length of the roadway.
Natural dispersion areas should have the following attributes:
 Be well vegetated, with established root zones.
 Have an average longitudinal slope of 6H:1V or flatter.
 Have an average lateral slope of 6H:1V or flatter for both the roadway side slope and
natural area to be part of the natural dispersion area, except where a level spreader is
located immediately upstream of the dispersion area. Then the average slope shall not
exceed 3H:1V.
 Have infiltrative soil properties that are verified by the WSDOT Materials Lab, the
Regional Materials Engineer, or a geotechnical engineer.
Natural dispersion areas that have impervious areas (for example, abandoned roads with
compacted subgrades) within them should have those areas tilled and restored using the
soil amendments described in Section 5-4.3.2.
Natural dispersion areas that are within a landslide hazard area must be evaluated by a
geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist.

April 2019
Natural dispersion areas should have a separation of at least 3 feet between the existing
ground elevation and the average annual maximum groundwater elevation. This separation
depth requirement applies to the entire limits of the dispersion area. There should be no
discernible continuous flow paths through the dispersion area.
When selecting natural dispersion areas, the PEO should determine whether there
are groundwater management plans for the area and contact the local water purveyors to
determine whether the project lies within a wellhead or groundwater protection zone, septic
drain fields, or aquifer recharge area. These areas typically restrict stormwater infiltration;
however, the local jurisdiction may waive this requirement. Contact the RHE for assistance in
these situations.
The WSDOT GIS Workbench may be a source of initial information about wells within the
project limits. (The GIS Workbench is an ArcView geographic information system tool
maintained by the HQ Geographic Services Division and the HQ Office of Information
Technology to provide staff with access to comprehensive, current, and detailed
environmental and natural resource management data.)
Intent: Natural dispersion areas are not likely to have a uniform slope across their entire area.
As a result, there are ponding areas and uneven terrain. Minor channelization of flow within the
dispersion area is expected. However, a continuous flow path through the entire dispersion area
disqualifies its use as a BMP because channelized flow promotes erosion of the channel that
carries the flow and greatly reduces the potential for effective pollutant removal and peak
flow attenuation.
Sheet Flow Criteria
Sheet flow dispersion criteria for natural dispersion areas are as follows:
 Ensure the sheet flow path leading to the natural dispersion area is not longer than
150 feet. The sheet flow path is measured in the direction of flow and generally
represents the width of the pavement area.
 Do not count pervious shoulders and side slopes in determining the sheet flow path.
 Ensure the longitudinal length of the dispersion area is equivalent to the longitudinal
length of roadway that is contributing sheet flow.
 Ensure the resultant slope from the contributing pavement is less than or equal to
9.4%, calculated using Equation 29:
𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 ≤ (𝐺𝐺 2 + 𝑒𝑒 2)0.5 (E-29)
where: SCFS = resultant slope of the lateral and longitudinal slopes (%)
e = lateral slope (superelevation) (%)
G = longitudinal slope (grade) (%)

April 2019

Where gravel level spreaders are not located between the highway and the dispersion area
(see Figure 5-48a), roadway side slopes leading to natural dispersion areas should be 25%
(4H:1V) or flatter. Roadway side slopes that are 25% to 15% (7H:1V) should not be considered
part of the dispersion area. Slopes steeper than 25% are allowed if the existing side slopes are
well vegetated and show no signs of erosion problems.
Where gravel level spreaders are located between the highway and the dispersion area (see
Figure 5-48b), consider roadway side slopes 33% or flatter part of the natural dispersion area if
existing side slopes are well vegetated and show no signs of erosion problems.11
For any existing slope that will lead to a natural dispersion area, if evidence of channelized flow
(rills or gullies) is present, use a flow-spreading device before those flows are allowed to enter
the dispersion area. The gravel spreader is not part of the natural dispersion area length.
Design Method
The size of the natural dispersion area depends on the flow contributing area and the predicted
rates of water loss through the dispersion system. Make sure the dispersion area is sufficient to
dispose of the runoff through infiltration, evaporation, transpiration, and soil absorption.
There are two sheet flow dispersion options that can be applied to size natural dispersion areas
only. The first option, described below, is based on a simplified equation (termed the LID Design
Equation 12) that was derived from a water balance model and is applicable only to eastern
Washington. This equation takes into account the roadway width, saturated hydraulic
conductivity, and rainfall intensity to derive the width needed for the natural dispersion.
The second option (Sheet Flow Dispersion Option 2) is based on soil characteristics. There is
also a natural dispersion design (Channelized Flow Dispersion Option 3) where channelized
flows are redispersed to sheet flow. This third option has both redispersion criteria as well
as different natural dispersion sizing criteria.
Sheet Flow Dispersion Option 1 – Design Process (eastern Washington only):
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠 (E-30)
−1
𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖
where: LID = width of the natural dispersion in feet

ACP = width of the roadway in feet
Ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity in inches per hour (see Section 4-5.3)
ri = rainfall intensity in inches per hour
11
Report, May 2011.
12
“Application of a Simplified Analysis Method for Natural Dispersion of Highway Stormwater Runoff,” WA-RD
618.1, Research Report, August 2005.
April 2019
The Ks /ri ratio must be greater than 2 for natural dispersion to have a viable benefit. If the ratio
is less than 1 or equal to 1, the equation is not valid and will result in negative values.
Calculating Rainfall Intensity in Eastern Washington:
The rainfall intensity (ri) is the peak 5-minute intensity of the 6-month, 3-hour short-duration
storm. To calculate ri, multiply the rainfall depth (2-year, 2-hour) by the Peak Intensity Factor
(PIF) based on its Mean Annual Precipitation for the area. Use the table below to convert the
Mean Annual Precipitation value to PIF.
The 2-year, 2-hour rainfall depth information is contained in Appendix 4A – Web Links, under
the Eastern Washington Isopluvial and Mean Annual Precipitation Map. WSDOT’s ArcMap GIS
system also contains this information.
ri = 2-year, 2-hour rainfall depth* PIF
DOE Climate Mean Annual Isopluvial to Peak

Region # Precipitation Intensity Factor:
6-8 1.85
2 8-10 1.88
10-12 1.94
2-3 12-16 2.00
3 16-22 2.03
22-28 2.09
1-4 28-40 2.12
40-60 2.19
60-120 2.25
Example: Spokane 2-year, 2-hour rainfall depth = 0.48 inches

Spokane Mean Annual Precipitation depth = 18 inches
Spokane PIF for 18 inches = 2.03 in/hr
Calculate ri = 0.48 in * 2.03 in/hr
= 0.97 in/hr
Sheet Flow Dispersion Option 2 – Based on Soil Characteristics
The following criteria are specific to sheet flow dispersion on all Type A and some Type B soils
on slopes 15% or less (depending on saturated hydraulic conductivity rates):
 For saturated hydraulic conductivity rates (as determined in Section 4-5.3) of 4 inches
per hour or greater and for the first 20 feet (along the sheet flow path) of impervious
surface that drains to the dispersion area, there must be 10 lateral feet of dispersion
area width. For each additional foot of impervious surface (along the sheet flow path)
that drains to the dispersion area, provide 0.25 lateral feet of dispersion area.
 For dispersion areas that receive sheet flow from only disturbed pervious areas (bare
soil and non-native landscaping), for every 6 feet (along the sheet flow path) of
disturbed pervious area, provide 1 lateral foot width of dispersion area.

April 2019
The following criteria are specific to sheet flow dispersion on all Type C and D soils and some
Type B soils with saturated hydraulic conductivity rates of 4 inches per hour or less on slopes
15% or less:
 For every 1 foot of contributing pavement width, provide a dispersion area width of
6.5 feet.
 Note that the dispersion area should have a minimum width of native vegetation of
100 feet (measured in the direction of the flow path).
 For slopes greater than 15%, multiply the dispersion area by the slope factor in the
table below.
Embankment Slope
Slopes (%)[1] Factor
≤15 1.00
20 1.09
25 1.17
30 1.23
33 1.27
[1] For eastern Washington, use 1.0 for all slopes.
Figure 5-48a illustrates the configuration of a typical sheet flow natural or engineered
dispersion area relative to the roadway.

April 2019
Figure 5-48a Natural or engineered dispersion without a gravel level spreader.
Figure 5-50b Natural or engineered dispersion with a gravel level spreader.

April 2019
Channelized Flow Dispersion Option 3

Channelized flow dispersion criteria for Type A, B, C, and D soils are as follows:
Redispersion Design Criteria
Flows collected in a pipe or ditch conveyance system require energy dissipation and dispersal
at the end of the conveyance system before entering the dispersion area. For flow dispersal
BMPs (such as gravel-filled trenches or level spreaders) and techniques, see Sections 5-4.3.4
and 5-4.3.5. (See the Hydraulics Manual for energy dissipater designs and considerations.)
Concentrated runoff from the roadway and adjacent upstream areas (such as in a ditch or cut
slope) must be incrementally discharged from the conveyance system (such as a ditch, gutter,
or storm sewer) via cross culverts or at the ends of cut sections. These incremental discharges
of newly concentrated flows must not exceed 0.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) at any single
discharge point from the conveyance system for the 100-year runoff event (determined by
an approved continuous flow model as described in Chapter 4). Where flows at a particular
discharge point are already concentrated under existing site conditions (for example, in a
natural channel that crosses the roadway alignment), the 0.5-cfs limit would be in addition
to the existing concentrated peak flows.
Discharge points with up to 0.2 cfs discharge for the peak 100-year flow may use rock pads or
dispersion trenches to disperse flows. Discharge points with between 0.2 and 0.5 cfs discharge
for the 100-year peak flow must use only dispersion trenches to disperse flows.
Design dispersion trenches to accept surface flows (free discharge) from a pipe, culvert, or ditch
end; aligned perpendicular to the flow path; a minimum of 2 feet by 2 feet in section; 50 feet in
length; filled with ¾- to 1½ inch washed rock; and provided with a level notched grade board
(see Sections 5-4.3.4 and 5-4.3.5). Use manifolds to split flows up to 2 cfs discharge for the
100-year peak flow between four trenches (maximum). Make sure dispersion trenches have
a minimum spacing of 50 feet.
After being dispersed with rock pads or trenches, flows from discharge points must traverse the
required flow path length of the dispersion area before entering an existing on-site channel
carrying existing concentrated flows away from the roadway alignment.
Note: To provide the required flow path length to an existing channel, some roadway runoff
may unavoidably enter the channel undispersed.
Do not allow flow paths from adjacent discharge points to intersect within the required flow
path lengths, and ensure dispersed flow from a discharge point is not intercepted by another
discharge point.
Locate ditch discharge points a minimum of 100 feet upgradient of steep slopes (slopes steeper
than 40% within a vertical elevation change of at least 10 feet), wetlands, and streams.

April 2019
Where the local jurisdiction determines that there is a potential for significant adverse impacts
downstream (such as erosive steep slopes or existing downstream drainage problems),
dispersion of roadway runoff may not be allowed, or other measures may be required.
Channelized Flow Dispersion Sizing Criteria
The following criterion is specific to channelized flow dispersion that discharged on slopes 15%
or less to all Type A and some Type B soils, depending on saturated hydraulic conductivity rates.
per hour or greater, the dispersion area should be at least 50% of the tributary
drainage area.
The following criteria are specific to channelized flow dispersion that discharged on slopes 15%
or less to all Type C and D soils and some Type B soils, depending on saturated hydraulic
conductivity rates.
 For every 1 foot of contributing pavement width, a dispersion area width of 6.5 feet is
needed.
 The dispersion area should have a minimum width of native vegetation of 100 feet,
measured in the direction of the flow path.
For slopes greater than 15%, multiply the dispersion area by the slope factor in the table below.
Embankment Slope
≤15 1.00
20 1.09
25 1.17
30 1.23
33 1.27
Figure 5-51 illustrates the configuration of a typical channelized flow natural or engineered
dispersion area relative to the roadway.

Natural dispersion areas can extend beyond WSDOT right of way provided that documentation
on right of way plans ensures (via easements or agreements) the dispersion area is not
developed in the future. Set natural dispersion areas back at least 100 feet from drinking water
wells, septic tanks or drain fields, and springs used for public drinking water supplies. Ensure
natural dispersion areas upgradient of drinking water supplies and within the 1-, 5-, and
10-year time of travel zones comply with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH)
requirements (Washington Wellhead Protection Program, DOH, 12/93).

April 2019
 Check with the local jurisdiction for additional setback requirements.

 If the project significantly increases flows to off-site properties, the PEO may need
a drainage easement or the PEO may purchase additional right of way.
 For installation of dispersal BMPs and conveyance systems near dispersion areas,
minimize the area that needs to be cleared or grubbed. Maintaining plant root
systems is important for dispersion areas.
 Do not compact the area around dispersion areas.
 To the maximum extent practicable, use low-ground-pressure vehicles and equipment
during construction.
General maintenance criteria should follow Table 5-17 (energy dissipaters).
Consider maintenance pullout areas to promote successful maintenance practices at dispersion
areas. Make sure pullout areas are large enough to accommodate a typical maintenance
vehicle. Contact the local maintenance office to determine the typical size of maintenance
vehicle used at the project site.
Signage
Mark the limits of the natural dispersion area as a stormwater management area on WSDOT
right of way sheets, and physically mark them in the field (during and after construction).
Signage ensures the natural dispersion area is protected from construction activity disturbance
and is adequately protected by measures shown in the temporary erosion and sedimentation
control (TESC) plan.
Signage helps ensure the natural dispersion area is not cleared or disturbed after the
construction project. (See Section 5-5.3 for signing requirements.)

April 2019
FC.02 – Engineered Dispersion

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Engineered dispersion is similar to natural dispersion. This BMP can be used for impervious or
pervious surfaces that are graded to drain via sheet flow or are graded to collect and convey
stormwater to engineered dispersion areas after going through a flow-spreading or energy
dissipater device. Engineered dispersion uses the existing vegetation or landscaped areas,
existing soils or engineered compost-amended soils, and topography to effectively provide flow
control and runoff treatment. This type of dispersion may require major or minor construction
activity depending on the existing site conditions. Site selection is very important to the success
of this BMP. The pollutant-removal processes include infiltration to the existing or engineered
soils and through vegetation root zones; evaporation; and uptake and transpiration by the
existing vegetation or landscaped areas.
The key to effective engineered dispersion is that flows from the impervious area enter the
dispersion area as sheet flow. Because stormwater enters as sheet flows to the dispersion area,
it need only traverse a band of contiguous vegetation and compost-amended soils for effective
attenuation and treatment. This differs from natural dispersion in that flows may not have
previously (preproject) been directed to the selected engineered dispersion area. Absorption
capacity can be gained by using compost-amended soils to disperse and absorb contributing
flows to the dispersion area. The goal is to have the flows dispersed into the surrounding
landscape such that there is a low probability that any surface runoff will reach a flowing
body of water.
Applications, limitations, and LID feasibility are the same as described in Natural Dispersion
(FC.01), and also include the following:
 Engineered dispersion areas may cost as much as other BMPs (ponds or vaults)
because compost-amended soils may need to be added.

Flows to Be Dispersed
Engineered dispersion areas are designed to handle stormwater from tributary areas so that
ideally there is no runoff leaving the engineered dispersion area.

Siting Criteria
The following areas are appropriate engineered dispersion areas because they are likely
to remain in their existing condition over the long term:
 WSDOT rights of way
 Protected beautification areas
 Agricultural areas

April 2019
 State parks
 Commercial or government-owned forestlands
 Rural areas with zoned densities of less than one dwelling unit per 5 acres
Engineered dispersion areas should have infiltrative soil properties that are verified by the
WSDOT Materials Lab or a geotechnical engineer using the testing methods in Chapter 4.
Engineered dispersion areas that have impervious areas (such as abandoned roads with
compacted subgrades) within them should have those areas tilled and reverted using the
soil amendments described in Section 5-4.3.2.
Engineered dispersion areas that are within a landslide hazard area must be evaluated by
a geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist. Do not site engineered dispersion areas above
slopes greater than 20% or above erosion hazard areas without evaluation by a geotechnical
engineer or qualified geologist and approval by the local jurisdiction.
Engineered dispersion areas should have a separation of at least 3 feet between the existing
ground elevation and the average annual maximum groundwater elevation.
When selecting engineered dispersion areas, determine whether there are groundwater
management plans for the area, and contact the local water purveyors to determine whether
the project lies within a wellhead or groundwater protection zone, septic drain fields, or aquifer
recharge area. These areas typically restrict stormwater infiltration; however, the local
jurisdiction may waive this requirement. The WSDOT GIS Workbench may be a source of initial
information about wells within the project limits.
Geometry
 The average longitudinal slope of the dispersion area should not exceed 6H:1V.
 The average lateral slope of the dispersion area should not exceed 6H:1V, except
where a level spreader is located immediately upstream of the dispersion area.
Then the average slope shall not exceed 3H:1V.
 There should be no discernible flow paths through the dispersion area.
 There should be no surface water discharge from the dispersion area to a conveyance
system or Category I and II wetlands (as defined by Ecology’s Wetland Rating Systems
for western and eastern Washington).
Materials
 Compost-amended soils should be generously applied to the dispersion areas.
The final organic content of the soil in the dispersion areas should be 5%. Design
information for determining the amount and type of compost needed and the
necessary planted vegetation to meet those requirements is given in Section
5-4.3.2.

April 2019
Design Method
There are two types of engineered dispersion. The first type (called sheet flow engineered
dispersion) is where flows already sheet flow off the roadway to an area that will be
redeveloped with engineered soils to create the engineered dispersion area (see Figures
5-48a and 5-48b). The second type of engineered dispersion (called channelized engineered
dispersion) is where runoff needs to be conveyed to an area that is not adjacent to the
tributary area (see Figure 5-51).
The required size of the engineered dispersion area depends on the area contributing flow
and the predicted rates of water loss through the dispersion system. Ensure the dispersion
area is able to dispose of (through infiltration, evaporation, transpiration, and soil absorption)
stormwater flows predicted by an approved continuous runoff model. Because a water balance
model has not yet been developed for designing engineered dispersion areas, a set of
conservative guidelines similar to those given for natural dispersion have been agreed upon
by WSDOT and Ecology. Check with The RHE or HQ Hydraulics Section staff for updates to the
engineered dispersion criteria.
Sheet Flow Engineered Dispersion
Sheet flow engineered dispersion criteria for Type A, B, C, and D soils are the same as described
for Natural Dispersion, with the following exceptions:
n Where gravel level spreaders are not located between the highway and the dispersion
area, as shown in Figure 5-48a, roadway side slopes leading to engineered dispersion
areas should be 25% (4H:1V) or flatter. Roadway side slopes that are 25% to 15%
(7H:1V) should not be considered part of the dispersion area. Roadway slopes steeper
than 25% are allowed if the existing side slopes are well vegetated and show no signs
of erosion problems. For any existing slope that will lead to an engineered dispersion
area, if evidence of channelized flow (rills or gullies) is present, use a flow-spreading
device before those flows are allowed to enter the dispersion area.
n Roadway side slopes that are 15% or flatter are considered part of the dispersion area
if engineered dispersion practices are applied to the slope (6.5 feet of compost-
amended side slope width mitigates for 1 foot of impervious surface). Roadway side
slopes up to 33% or flatter are considered part of the dispersion area if a gravel level
spreader is located between the highway and the dispersion area, as shown in Figure
5-48b.13 The use of natural and engineered dispersion concepts within one threshold
discharge area is acceptable.
13
Report, May 2011.
April 2019
Channelized Engineered Dispersion

Channelized engineered dispersion criteria for Type A, B, C, and D soils are the same as
described for natural dispersion, with the following exceptions.
The following criterion is specific to channelized engineered dispersion on all Type A and some
Type B soils on slopes 15% or less, depending on saturated hydraulic conductivity rates:
per hour or greater, and for the first 20 feet (along the sheet flow path) of impervious
surface that drains to the dispersion area, there must be 10 lateral feet of dispersion
area width. For each additional foot of impervious surface (along the sheet flow path)
that drains to the dispersion area, provide 0.25 lateral feet of dispersion area.
The following criteria are specific to channelized engineered dispersion on Type C and D soils
and some Type B soils on slopes 15% or less, depending on saturated hydraulic conductivity
rates:
 For every 1 foot of contributing pavement width, a dispersion area width of 6.5 feet
is needed.
 The dispersion area should have a minimum width of 100 feet, measured in the
direction of the flow path.
 The dispersion area length (measured in the direction perpendicular to the flow path)
is generally determined by the dispersion trench. The number of dispersion trenches is
determined by the flow rate since each trench can only handle a maximum amount of
flow. See the redispersion criteria in the FC.01 Natural Dispersion BMP.
 Figure 5-51 illustrates the configuration of typical channelized flow for natural or
engineered dispersion areas relative to the roadway.
For slopes greater than 15%, multiply the dispersion area by the slope factor in the table below.
Embankment Slope
≤15 1.00
20 1.09
25 1.17
30 1.23
33 1.27

Same as those described for Natural Dispersion.

April 2019

Same as those described for Natural Dispersion. General maintenance criteria should follow
Table 5-17 (energy dissipaters) and Table 5-19 (vegetated filter strips).
Signage
Figure 5-49 Channelized flow to natural or engineered dispersion area.

April 2019
5-4.2.3 Detention BMPs

FC.03 – Detention Pond

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
Detention ponds are open basins that provide live storage volume to enable reduction of
stormwater runoff flow rates and matching of predeveloped flow durations discharged from
a project site (see Figures 5-52, 5-53, and 5-54). Detention ponds are commonly used for flow
control in locations where space is available for an aboveground stormwater facility but where
infiltration of runoff is infeasible. Detention ponds are designed to drain completely after
a storm event so that the live storage volume is available for the next event.
Applications
 Use detention ponds to reduce peak flows when flow control is needed.
 Combine detention ponds with wetpool runoff treatment BMPs to make more
effective use of available land area (see BMP CO.01, Combined Wet/Detention Pond,
and BMP CO.02, Combined Stormwater Treatment Wetland/Detention Pond).
Limitations
 Because detention ponds release at small flow rates, they require large footprints.
 Detention ponds should not be built below the seasonal high groundwater elevation.

Flows to Be Detained
For western Washington, design detention ponds using a continuous simulation hydrologic
model to show the pond outflows match Ecology’s flow duration standard discussed in Section
4-3.2 and Table 3-6.
For eastern Washington, design detention ponds using a single-event hydrograph model to
show the pond outflows match the peak flows discussed in Table 3-7 and Section 4-4.2.
Detention Ponds in Infiltrative Soils
The PEO may occasionally sit detention ponds on soils that are sufficiently permeable for a
properly functioning infiltration system. These detention ponds have both a surface discharge
and a subsurface discharge. If infiltration is accounted for in the detention pond sizing
calculations, ensure the pond design process and corresponding site conditions meet all the
requirements for infiltration ponds (see BMP IN.02), including a soils report, soil infiltration
testing, groundwater protection, presettling, and construction techniques.

April 2019
Figure 5-50 Detention pond.

April 2019
Figure 5-51 Detention pond: Cross sections.

April 2019
Figure 5-52 Detention pond: Cross sections.

April 2019
Figure 5-53 Overflow structure with debris cage.

April 2019
Riser Inflow Curves
Figure 5-54 Overflow structure sizing.

April 2019

Geometry
Pond inflows must enter through a conveyance system separate from the outlet control
structure and outflow conveyance system. Maximizing distance between the inlet and outlet
is encouraged to promote sediment trapping.
Pond bottoms must be level and must be a minimum of 0.5 feet below the inlet and outlet
invert elevations to provide sediment storage.
Interior side slopes up to the emergency overflow water surface should not be steeper than
3H:1V unless a fence is provided (see Fencing below).
Exterior side slopes must not be steeper than 2H:1V unless analyzed for stability by a
geotechnical engineer.
Pond walls may be vertical retaining walls subject to the following:
 Ensure they are constructed of minimum 3,000-psi structural reinforced concrete.
 Provide all construction joints with water stops.
 Design cast-in-place wall sections as retaining walls. A licensed civil engineer with
structural expertise must stamp structural designs for cast-in-place walls.
 Place walls on stable, well-consolidated native material with suitable bedding, per
the Standard Specifications. Do not place walls in fill slopes unless the slopes have
been analyzed in a geotechnical report for stability and constructability.
 Provide a fence along the top of the wall.
 Although the entire pond perimeter may be retaining walls, it is recommended that
at least 25% of the pond perimeter be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 7H:1V.
Steeper slopes are permitted; consult with the local maintenance office.
 Discuss the design of the pond with the local maintenance office to determine
whether there are maintenance access issues.
 Ensure the design is stamped by a licensed civil engineer with structural expertise.
 The PEO may use other retaining walls such as rockeries, concrete, masonry unit walls,
and keystone-type walls if they designed under the direction of a geotechnical
engineer or a civil engineer with structural expertise. If the entire pond perimeter is to
be retaining walls, provide ladders on the full height of the walls for safe access by
maintenance staff.

April 2019
Embankments
Construct pond berm embankments in accordance with Section 2-03.3(14)C, Method C, of the
Standard Specifications.
For berm embankments 6 feet high or less, ensure the minimum top width is 6 feet or
as recommended by a geotechnical engineer.
Construct pond berm embankments on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted and
stable fill soils analyzed by a geotechnical engineer), free of loose surface soil materials, roots,
and other organic debris.
Construct pond berm embankments greater than 4 feet high by excavating a key trench equal
to 50% of the berm embankment cross sectional height and width unless specified otherwise
by a geotechnical engineer.
Place antiseepage filter-drain diaphragms on outflow pipes in berm embankments impounding
water with depths greater than 8 feet at the design water surface. Additional guidance on filter-
drain diaphragms is given in Ecology’s Dam Safety Guidelines, Part IV, Dam Construction and
Design (Section 3.3B): https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-
supply/Dams/Construction-maintenance/Guidance
Dam Safety for Detention BMPs
Stormwater detention facilities that can impound 10 acre-feet (435,600 cubic feet, or 3.26
million gallons) or more of runoff with the water level at the embankment crest are subject
to state dam safety requirements, even if water storage is intermittent and infrequent (WAC
173-175-020[1]). The principal safety concern is for the downstream population at risk if the
embankment or other impoundment structure should breach and allow an uncontrolled release
of the pond contents. Peak flows from impoundment failures are typically much larger than the
100-year flows, which these ponds are generally designed to accommodate.
Ecology’s Dam Safety Office uses consequence-dependent design levels for critical project
elements. There are eight design levels with storm recurrence intervals ranging from 1 in 500
years for Design Step 1, to 1 in 1,000,000 years for Design Step 8. The specific design step for
a particular project depends on the downstream population and other resources that would
be at risk from a failure of the impoundment. Precipitation events more extreme than the
100-year event may be rare at any one location, but have historically occurred somewhere
within Washington State every few years (on average).
With regard to the engineering design of stormwater detention facilities, the primary effect
of the state’s dam safety requirements is in sizing the emergency spillway to accommodate the
runoff from the dam safety design storm without overtopping the impoundment structure
(typically a berm or other embankment). The hydrologic computation procedures are the
same as those for the original pond design, except that the computations must use more
extreme precipitation values and the appropriate dam safety design storm hyetographs.
This information is described in detail within guidance documents developed by and
available from the Dam Safety Office (contact information is provided below).

April 2019
In addition to the other design requirements for stormwater detention BMPs described
elsewhere in this manual, make sure dam safety requirements are an integral part of planning
and design for stormwater detention ponds. It is most cost-effective to consider these
requirements at the beginning of the project.
In addition to the hydrologic and hydraulic issues related to precipitation and runoff, other dam
safety requirements relate to geotechnical issues; construction inspection and documentation;
dam breach analysis; inundation mapping; emergency action planning; and periodic inspections
by project owners and by engineers from the Dam Safety Office. All of these requirements, plus
procedural requirements for plan review, approval, and payment of construction permit fees,
are described in detail in guidance documents developed by and available from the Dam Safety
Office.
In addition to the written guidance documents, engineers from the Dam Safety Office
are available to provide technical assistance to project owners and design engineers in
understanding and addressing the dam safety requirements for their specific projects. In the
interest of providing a smooth integration of dam safety requirements into the stormwater
detention project, and streamlining the Dam Safety Office engineering review and issuance
of the construction permit, it is recommended and requested that the Dam Safety Office be
contacted early in the project planning process. The Dam Safety Office is located in the Ecology
Headquarters building in Lacey. Electronic versions of the guidance documents are available
on Ecology’s website: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-
supply/Dams/Construction-maintenance/Guidance
Inlet and Outlet
If the inlet pipe is submerged below the design water surface elevation, then compute the
hydraulic grade line (HGL) of the inlet pipe to verify that backwater conditions are acceptable.
(See the Hydraulics Manual for computing an HGL.)
Control structures are catch basins or manholes with a restrictor device for controlling outflow
from a facility to meet the desired performance. Riser-type restrictor devices (tees or FROP Ts)
also provide some incidental oil/water separation to temporarily detain oil or other floatable
pollutants in runoff due to accidental spills or illegal dumping. The restrictor device usually
consists of two or more orifices or an orifice/weir section sized to meet performance
requirements. Standard control structure details are shown in the Standard Plans.
Multiple Orifice Restrictor
In most cases, control structures need only two orifices: one at the bottom and one near the
top of the riser (although additional orifices may optimize the detention storage volume). If
necessary, locate several orifices at the same elevation to meet performance requirements.
 The minimum circular orifice diameter is 0.5 inches. For orifices that have a diameter
of less than 1 inch, consider using a flow screen that fits over the orifice to help
prevent plugging. (See Figure 5-54 for more details on orifice screens.)

April 2019
n The PEO may construct orifices on a tee section as shown in the Standard Plans.
n In some cases, performance requirements may require the top orifice or elbow
to be located too high on the riser to be physically constructed (for example, a
13-inch-diameter orifice cannot be positioned 6 inches from the top of the riser).
In these cases, the PEO may use a notch weir in the riser pipe to meet performance
requirements.
n Consider the backwater effect of water surface elevations in the downstream
conveyance system. High tailwater elevations may affect performance of the restrictor
system and reduce live storage volumes. If these conditions are present, see Section 8.4
of the MGSFlood User’s Manual for further design guidelines.
n There should be a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard above the detention design water
surface elevation, determined in accordance with the flow control criteria presented in
Section 3-3.6 under Minimum Requirement 6 (Flow Control). The detention design
water surface elevation is the highest water surface elevation that is projected in order
to satisfy the flow control requirements listed in Table 3-6 for western Washington and
Table 3-7 for eastern Washington. Hydrologic analysis and design methods are
presented in Sections 4-3.5 for western Washington and 4-4.5 for eastern Washington.
Read these sections for guidelines on how to incorporate the detention pond water
surface into the flow control modeling.
Riser and Weir Restrictor
 The PEO may use properly designed weirs as flow restrictors. However, the PEO must
design them to provide for primary overflow of the developed 100-year peak flow
discharging to the detention facility.
 The PEO may use the combined orifice and riser (or weir) overflow to meet
performance requirements; however, the PEO’s design must still provide for primary
overflow of the developed 100-year peak flow, assuming all orifices are plugged.
 For different orifice, weir, and riser configurations and design equations and
assumptions, see the MGSFlood or Western Washington Highways Hydrology Analysis
Model (WHAM) training manuals: www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/hydraulics
Primary Overflow
Provide a primary overflow (usually a riser pipe within the outlet control structure) for the
detention pond system to bypass the 100-year postdeveloped peak flow over or around the
flow restrictor system. Overflow can occur when the facility is full of water due to plugging of
the outlet control structure or high inflows; the primary overflow is intended to protect against
breaching of the pond embankment (or overflows of the upstream conveyance system). The
PEO’s design must provide controlled discharge of pond overflows directly into the downstream
conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point.

April 2019
Provide a secondary inlet to the pond discharge control structure as additional protection
against overflows should the PEO determine that the primary inlet pipe to the control structure
would likely become plugged. In these situations, first consult with the Area Maintenance
Office to decide whether a secondary inlet to the control structure would be appropriate.
One option for the secondary inlet is a grated opening (called a jailhouse window) in the
control structure that functions as a weir when used as a secondary inlet. Ensure the maximum
circumferential length of a jailhouse window weir opening does not exceed one half the
control structure circumference. Contact the RHE for the specific structural design modification
requirements on this design option.
Another common option for a secondary inlet is to allow flow to spill into the top of the
discharge control structure, or another structure linked to the discharge control structure,
that is fitted with a debris cage (called a birdcage; see Figure 5-55). The PEO can use other
options for secondary inlets, subject to assurance that they would not be plugged by the same
mechanism that plugged the primary inlet pipe.
In addition to the overflow provisions described above, detention ponds must have an
emergency overflow spillway. For impoundments of 10 acre-feet or greater, the emergency
overflow spillway must meet the state’s dam safety requirements (see discussion on dam safety
later in this section). For impoundments with less than 10 acre-feet of storage, ponds must
have an emergency overflow spillway that is sized to pass the 100-year postdeveloped
undetained peak flow in the event of total control structure failure (for example, blockage
of the control structure outlet pipe) or extreme inflows. Emergency overflow spillways are
intended to control the location where flows overtop the pond perimeter and direct overflows
into the downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point. Set the bottom
of the emergency overflow spillway at the design water surface elevation.
Provide emergency overflow spillways for ponds with constructed berms more than 2 feet
high or for ponds located on grades more than 5%. As an option, the PEO may provide
emergency overflow by a Type II manhole fitted with a birdcage, as shown in Figure 5-55. The
PEO must design the emergency overflow structure to pass the 100-year postdeveloped peak
flow directly to the downstream conveyance system or to another acceptable discharge point.
Where an emergency overflow spillway would discharge to a steep slope, consider providing
an emergency overflow structure in addition to the spillway.
Armor the emergency overflow spillway with riprap that is sized in conformance with guidelines
in the Hydraulics Manual. Make sure the spillway is armored across its full width and down the
embankment, per Section C-C in Figure 5-54).
Analyze emergency overflow spillway designs as shown in Figure 5-53 as broad-crested
trapezoidal weirs using the following equation:

April 2019
Ql00 = C (2g)1/2 [ 2 LH3/2 + 8 (Tan θ ) H5/2] (E-31)

3 15
where: Ql00 = peak flow for the 100-year runoff event (cfs)
C = discharge coefficient (0.6)
g = gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
L = length of weir (ft)
H = height of water over weir (ft)
θ = angle of side slopes
Assuming C = 0.6 and Tan θ = 3 (for 3H:1V slopes), the equation becomes:
Ql00 = 3.21[LH3/2 + 2.4 H5/2] (E-32)
To find the width L for the weir section, the equation is rearranged to use the computed Ql00
and trial values of H (0.2 feet minimum):
L = [Ql00/(3.21H3/2)] - 2.4 H or 6 feet minimum (E-33)
Analyze emergency overflow spillway designs using a Type II manhole fitted with a birdcage,
as shown in Figure 5-55, using Figure 5-56 to pass the 100-year postdeveloped undetained
peak low.

Groundwater Issues
Construct flow control BMPs above the seasonal high groundwater table. Storage capacity and
proper flow attenuation are compromised if groundwater levels are allowed to fluctuate above
the limits of live storage. Site flow control pond, vault, and tank locations within the TDA such
that there is a separation between the local groundwater table elevation and the bottom of the
proposed BMP. In some cases, this may require that the PEO construct a much shallower pond
in order to function properly.
Determine the groundwater table elevation in and around the flow control facility early in the
project. The PEO can do this by installing piezometers at the BMP location and taking water
table readings over at least one wet season. The wet season is generally defined as October 1
through April 30. Where it has been determined that site conditions within the project limits
are not conducive to constructing flow control facilities due to high groundwater levels, it may
be necessary that the PEO evaluate potential project impacts and solutions using the EEF
Evaluation in Appendix 2A and go through the Demonstrative Approach Team (DAT) discussed
in Section 3-5. Look for opportunities to provide flow control to an equivalent area in the
project that discharges to the same sensitive area or receiving water body.
Seeps and Springs
Intermittent seeps along cut slopes are typically fed by a shallow groundwater source
(interflow) flowing along a relatively impermeable soil stratum. These flows are storm-driven
and should discontinue after a few weeks of dry weather. However, if the site exhibits other
more continuous seeps and springs extending through longer dry periods, they are likely from
a deeper groundwater source. When continuous flows are intercepted and directed through
flow control facilities, the PEO may have to make adjustments to the facility design to account
for the additional base flow (unless already considered in the design).
April 2019
Detention ponds must be a minimum of 5 feet from any property line or vegetative buffer. The
PEO may need to increase this distance based on the permit requirements of the local
jurisdiction. Ensure detention ponds are 100 feet from any septic tank or drain field (except wet
vaults, which must be a minimum of 20 feet).
Request from the WSDOT Materials Lab a geotechnical report for the project that evaluates
any potential structural site instability due to extended subgrade saturation or head loading of
the permeable layer, including the potential impacts to downgradient properties—especially
on hills with known side-hill seeps. The report should address the adequacy of the proposed
detention pond locations and recommend the necessary setbacks from any steep slopes
and building foundations.
The project should revegetate the side slopes of the detention pond to the maximum extent
practicable. The minimum vegetation effort would be to hydroseed the pond’s interior above
the 100-year water surface elevation and the exterior side slopes before completion of the
project. Contact the Region Landscape Office if using a different seed mix than shown below.
Erosion Control Seed Mix
Kind and Variety of Seed in Mixture Pounds of Pure Live Seed Per Acre
Roemer’s Fescue (Festuca) 16
Western Fescue (Festuca idahoensis) 16
Canby’s Bluegrass (Poa secunda ‘Canbyi’) 8
Sterile Triticale 5
TOTAL 45
Fencing
Pond walls may be retaining walls as long as the PEO provides a fence along the top of the wall
and ensure at least 25% of the pond perimeter will have a slope of 3H:1V or flatter. (See the
Design Manual for additional fencing requirements.)
Operations and Maintenance Requirements
For general maintenance requirements, see Section 5-3.7.1.
Signage

April 2019
5-4.3 Stormwater Facility Components

5-4.3.1 Pretreatment
RT.24 – Presettling Basin
Description: Provides pretreatment of

runoff to remove suspended solids that can
impact primary runoff treatment BMPs.
Length to Width Ratio 3:1 Max
(5:1 Preferred)
Interior Embankment Slope 3H:1V
Exterior Embankment Slope 2H:1V
Min Depth 4'
Max Depth 6'
Presettling Basin along Bottom Slope 2%
I-5 in Snohomish County
BMP Function
 LID
 Flow Control  5-10
 Phosphorus
 TSS - Basic
 Low to Moderate  Moderate
 Dissolved Metals - Enhanced
 4-5 Infiltration Design Criteria  Soil Amendments/Compost
 Landscaping/Planting  5-4.3.3 Facility Liners
 Inlet and Outlet Spacing  Fencing
 Overflow  Presettling/Pretreatment
 Multidisciplinary Team  Underdrain

  Phosphorus  Mowing
  Temperature  Specialized Equipment
  Dissolved Metals  Specialized Training
  Dissolved Oxygen 5-3.7.1 and 5.5. Sediment removal
  pH every 3-5 years.
  Oil/Grease
  PAHs *Provides pretreatment only.
  Pesticides
guidance.

April 2019
Introduction
General Description
A presettling basin provides pretreatment of runoff to remove suspended solids that can
impact other primary runoff treatment BMPs (see Figures 5-57 and 5-58).
The most attractive aspect of a presettling basin is its isolation from the rest of the facility.
Presettling basins remove excess sediment loads from runoff when sediment falls out of
suspension and settles. However, they do not detain water long enough for removal of most
pollutants (such as some metals). Presettling basins are used as pretreatment for downstream
infiltration facilities. Runoff treated by a presettling basin may not discharge directly to a
receiving water body. Presettling basins do not qualify as basic or enhanced runoff treatment.

Flows to Be Treated
Design presettling basins with a wetpool. Ensure the runoff treatment volume is at least 30%
of the total volume of runoff from the 6-month, 24-hour storm event.
Overflow or Bypass
Consider the possibility of overflows when designing presettling basins. Construct a designed
overflow section along the presettling basin embankment to allow flows to exit at a nonerosive
velocity during the 6-month, 24-hour storm event. Set the overflow at the permanent pool
level. The use of an aquatic bench with emergent vegetation around the perimeter helps with
water quality.
Inlet Structure
Ensure the runoff treatment volume is discharged uniformly and at low velocity into the
presettling basin to maintain near-quiescent conditions, which are necessary for effective
treatment. It is desirable for the heavier suspended material to drop out near the front of
the basin. The PEO may need energy-dissipation devices to reduce inlet velocities that exceed
3 feet per second.
The outlet structure conveys the runoff treatment volume from the presettling basin to the
primary treatment BMP (for example, a wetland or sand filtration basin). The passive outlet
control structure can be created as an earthen berm, gabion, concrete, or riprap wall along
the separation embankment preceding the primary treatment BMP.

April 2019
Figure 5-55 Typical presettling basin.

April 2019
Figure 5-56 Presettling basin: Alternate sections.

April 2019

Geometry
A long, narrow basin is preferred because it is less prone to short-circuiting and tends to
maximize available treatment area. The length-to-width ratio should be at least 3:1 and
preferably 5:1. The inlet and outlet should be at opposite ends of the basin, where feasible.
Materials
Widely acceptable construction materials and specifications, such as those developed by the
USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for embankment ponds and reservoirs, may aid in building the impoundment.
Berms, Embankments, Baffles, and Slopes
Construct berm embankments on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted and stable
fill soils analyzed by a geotechnical report), free of loose surface soil materials, roots, and other
organic debris.
The inlet and outlet should be at opposite ends of the basin, where feasible. If this is not
possible, then install baffles to increase the flow path and water residence time.
Sod or seed exposed earth on the side slopes and bottom with the appropriate seed mixture
as soon as is practicable. If necessary, use geotextile or matting to stabilize slopes until seeding
or sodding become established.
If composed of a structural retaining wall, interior side slopes may be nearly vertical as long
as the PEO provides maintenance access. Otherwise, they should be no steeper than 3H:1V.
Exterior embankment slopes should be 2H:1V or less. The bottom of the basin should have a 2%
slope to allow complete drainage. The minimum depth must be 4 feet; the maximum depth
must be 6 feet.
Embankments that impound water must comply with Washington dam safety regulations
(WAC 173-175). If the impoundment has a storage capacity (including both water and sediment
storage volumes) greater than 10 acre-feet (435,000 cubic feet, or 3.26 million gallons) above
natural ground level, then a dam safety design and review are required.
Liners
If the basin intercepts the seasonal high groundwater table, a liner is recommended. In these
situations, a low-permeability liner or treatment liner must cover the bottom and side areas.
(See liner criteria in Section 5-4.3.3 for further information.)

 Presettling basins must be a minimum of 5 feet from any property line or vegetative
buffer. The PEO may need to increase this distance based on the permit requirements
of the local jurisdiction.

April 2019
 Ensure presettling basins are 100 feet from any septic tank or drain field, except wet
vaults, which must be a minimum of 20 feet.
 Request from the WSDOT Materials Lab a geotechnical report for the project
that evaluates any potential structural site instability due to extended subgrade
saturation or head loading of the permeable layer, including the potential impacts
to downgradient properties (especially on hills with known side-hill seeps). The
report should address the adequacy of the proposed presettling basin locations and
recommend the necessary setbacks from any steep slopes and building foundations.
Safety, Signage, and Fencing
Incorporate all possible safety precautions for basins that are readily accessible to populated
areas. Protect dangerous outlet facilities by enclosure. Use warning signs wherever appropriate.
Place signs so that at least one is clearly visible and legible from all adjacent streets, sidewalks,
or paths.
Maintenance
Failure of large impoundment structures can cause significant property damage and even loss
of life. Regularly inspect impoundment structures for signs of failure, such as seepage or cracks
in the walls or berm.
Presettling basins are less likely than wet ponds to build up excessive levels of heavy metals
from sediments washed off impervious areas. Routine maintenance should remove and
properly dispose of any significant sediment deposits. Sediment should be removed every
three to five years or when 6 to 12 inches have accumulated, whichever comes first. More
frequent removal of sediment from the presettling basin may be less costly over the same
time period than a one-time cleaning of the entire basin. (See Section 5-5 for further criteria.)
5-4.3.2 Soil Amendments
Introduction
General Description
Soil amendments, including compost and other organic materials, help restore the health of the
soil and increase environmental functions such as rainwater infiltration and natural detention,
evapotranspiration, and plant health. Soil amendments can help prevent or minimize adverse
stormwater impacts during construction and are used along with vegetation as a permanent
runoff treatment BMP. Compost is a versatile material that can be used as a component in
many other permanent and temporary stormwater BMPs.
Compost-amended soils can be modeled as pasture on native soil. The final organic content
of these soils should be 5% for all areas, excluding turf areas, which are expected to receive
a high amount of foot traffic. Turf (lawn) areas with high foot traffic must have a 5% final
organic content.

April 2019

The PEO can use soil amendments in most unpaved areas within the project. If the PEO applies
soil amendments as a blanket, they perform erosion control functions immediately by providing
a cover to bare soils. When the PEO incorporates them into the soil, they increase infiltration
and adsorption of metals and aid in the uptake of nutrients. They also enhance vegetation
growth and plant establishment.
Compost provides an excellent growing medium for roadside vegetation. Traditional highway
construction methods typically result in the excavation and removal of the area’s topsoil.
Roadway embankments are then constructed from material that has few nutrients, is low in
organic material, and is compacted to 95% maximum density. Adding compost to roadway
slopes and ditches provides soil cover, improves soil fertility and texture, and greatly improves
the vegetative growth and soil stability (thereby reducing erosion).
Organic soil amendments soak up water like a sponge and store it until it can be slowly
infiltrated into the ground or taken up by plants. (For instance, 4 inches of compost tilled into
8 inches of Alderwood series soil increased the water storage capacity by 100% [Harrison et al.,
1997].) In some BMP applications, the volume of compost can be sized to absorb and hold the
runoff treatment storm.
Compost is an excellent filtration medium, which provides treatment for highway runoff.
Compost has a high cation exchange capacity (CEC) that chemically traps dissolved heavy
metals and binds them to the compost material. Oils, grease, and floatables are also
removed from stormwater as it is filtered through the compost.
Compost is very absorbent when dry, but when saturated it has a high infiltration rate.
Therefore, greater storm events can pass through compost medium without hindering the
infiltration rates of underlying soils or drain materials. Compost has also been shown to
improve the infiltration rates of underlying soils, even till soils.
Placement of a compost blanket on bare soil helps stabilize the soil and prevent surface erosion
by intercepting rainfall. This type of application changes the texture and workability of the soil,
lengthens the acceptable seeding windows, and encourages plant growth.
The PEO can use compost soil amendments in the construction phase of projects as compost
berms and compost socks in lieu of conventional geotextile silt fences for sediment control (see
BMP 5-1.1.15, Filter Berms, in the TESCM). While being an effective sediment trap during the
construction phase, compost berms are advantageous in that they can be bladed out at the
construction site, which avoids bid items for the haul and disposal of silt fences. If the
permanent stormwater design involves use of compost-amended vegetated filter strips, the
PEO can use a batch of compost as sediment control in a berm, then the PEO can blade out the
berm along a highway roadside, where the PEO can use it as part of vegetated filter strip
construction. The PEO can leave compost socks in place, as they will deteriorate with time. For
information on compost sock use, limitations, and placement, contact the RHE, the HQ
Roadside and Site Development Section, or the HQ Environmental Services Office.

April 2019
Maintenance
Compost, as with sand filters or other filter mediums, can become plugged with fines and
sediment, which may require removal and replacement. Including vegetation with compost
helps prevent the medium from becoming plugged with sediment by breaking up the sediment
and creating root pathways for stormwater to penetrate into the compost. It is expected that
soil amendments will have a removal and replacement cycle; however, this time frame has not
yet been established.

Materials
Ensure compost material are aged and cured according to Section 9-14.4(8) of the Standard
Specifications.
There are three types of compost specified in the Standard Specifications: fine, medium, and
coarse. Fine compost is a finer and usually more mature form of compost. It is for general soil
amendment use and should not be used for compost filter berms or socks. Coarse compost has
been screened to remove most of the fines. Medium compost has a blend of finer and coarser
particles. To prevent failure due to clogging, medium compost is specified for compost berms
and socks. Different types of compost can be used as a soil amendment or blanket depending
on the soil type and desired final outcome. Consult the Region or HQ Landscape Architect for
site-specific recommendations.
Compost
Organic soil amendment, suitable for landscaping and stormwater management, should
be a stable, mature compost derived from organic waste materials, including yard debris,
wood wastes, or other organic materials that meet the intent of the organic soil amendment
specification. Compost stability indicates the level of microbial activity in the compost and
is measured by the amount of CO2 produced over a given period of time by a sample in a
closed container. Unstable compost can render nutrients temporarily unavailable and create
objectionable odors.
Determine compost quality by examining the material and by qualitative tests. A simple way
to judge compost quality is to smell and examine the finished product, which should have the
following characteristics (WORC, 2003):
 Earthy smell that is not sour, sweet, nor ammonia-like
 Brown to black in color
 Mixed particle sizes
 Stable temperature and does not get hot when rewetted
 Crumbly texture

April 2019
Qualitative tests and producer documentation should have the following specifications:
 Material must meet the definition for “composted materials” in WSDOT’s Standard
Specifications, Section 9-14, and WAC 173-350-220, which is available online:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-220
 Compost used in enhanced runoff treatment applications must not contain biosolids
or any street or highway sweepings
For further information, see the Roadside Manual (Chapter 700).
Organic Matter Content of Soil Mixes

The PEO can achieve the minimum organic matter content by amending soils using the
preapproved Presumptive Method (as outlined below) or by amending soils using the Custom
Method, where the PEO would have to calculate a custom amendment rate for the existing site
soil conditions. The Presumptive Method simplifies planning and implementation; however, the
organic matter content of the disturbed on-site soils may be relatively good and not require as
extensive an application of amendment material. In many cases, calculating a site-specific rate
using the Custom Method may result in significant savings in amendment material and
application costs.
Presumptive Method for Determining Soil Organic Content
Soil amendments can be used two ways: placed on top of the soil or incorporated into it. The
intent of incorporation is to increase the organic content of the soil, replicating a forested soil
condition. Figure 5-59 shows typical details for soil amendments used in woody planting areas
and grass or CAVFS areas.
To encourage native woody plant species, employ the following presumptive technique (see
Figure 5-59, Figure A):
 Incorporate 3 inches of medium compost into the top 9 inches of soil
 Place 3 inches of bark or wood chip mulch on the surface
 Plant through the layers
To encourage grass or CAVFS, employ the following presumptive technique (see Figure 5-59,
Figure B):
 Incorporate 1.75 inches of medium compost into the top 6.25 inches of soil
 Roll to compact soil to 85% maximum density. 14
 Establish vegetation on top of incorporated soil
14
2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
April 2019
Figure A – Amendments to encourage native woody plants.
Figure B – Amendments for grass or CAVFS areas.

Figure 5-57 Soil amendments for vegetation.
The organic content of the soil should be 5% for areas planted with woody species and 5% for
lawn areas after adding the amendments. (Note that WSDOT does not construct many lawn
areas. Some projects in urban and semiurban areas may include lawn areas. Lawns are areas
that will be mowed regularly and may contain irrigation. Roadside areas that are hydroseeded
for erosion control are not considered lawn areas.) The amount of compost or other soil
amendments used varies by soil type and organic matter content. If there is a good possibility
that site conditions may already contain a relatively high organic content, then it may be
possible to modify the presumptive technique described above and still achieve the 5% organic
content target. Contact the Region or HQ Landscape Architect to determine the amount of
organic material in the project soils and the amount of soil amendments needed to bring the
organic matter to the percentages listed above.

April 2019
Custom Method for Determining Soil Organic Content

The design of the final soil composition is critical to the success of the facility. Use the following
guidelines to design the soil mix.
Calculating a custom rate requires that the PEO collect soil samples from the area to be
amended and samples from the compost material. Then, test the soil and compost for percent
organic matter. Compost and topsoil producers can often supply the required information for
the amendment material. A quick way to determine the approximate organic matter content
of a soil mix would be to use the following rules of thumb:
 Compost is typically 40% to 50% organic matter (use 45% as an average).
 Compost weighs approximately 50% as much as loam.
 A mix that is 40% compost measured by volume is roughly 20% organic matter by volume.
 Compost is only 50% as dense as the soil, so the mix is approximately 10% organic
matter by weight (the organic matter content in soil is determined by weighing the
organic material before combustion and then weighing the ash post combustion).
 The final soil mix (including compost and soil) should have a minimum long-term
hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 inch/hour per ASTM Designation D2434 (Standard Test
Method for Permeability of Granular Soils) at 80% compaction per ASTM Designation
D1557 (Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
Using Modified Effort) (Tackett, 2004). Infiltration rate and hydraulic conductivity are
assumed to be approximately the same in a uniform mix soil.
 The final soil mixture should have a minimum organic content of 5% by dry weight per
ASTM Designation D2974 (Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash and Organic
Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils) (Tackett, 2004). Currently, gravelly sand LID
BMP soil mixtures are being developed and installed to provide adequate infiltration
rates at 85% to 95% compaction. While the PEO can anticipate good performance
from this specification, the mix may be slightly less than optimal for plant growth and
has not been tested long term for plant health performance.
 Achieving the above recommendations will depend on the specific soil and compost
characteristics. In general, the recommendation can be achieved with 60% loamy sand
mixed with 25% to 30% compost and 10 to 15% coarse sand.
 The final soil mixture should be tested by the WSDOT Materials Lab prior to
installation for fertility, micronutrient analysis, and organic material content. Soil
amendments per Region or HQ Landscape Architect Office recommendations (if any)
should be uniformly incorporated for optimum plant establishment and early growth
(Tackett, 2004).
 Clay content for the final soil mix should be less than 5%.
 Compost must not contain biosolids or any street or highway sweepings.

April 2019
n The pH for the soil mix should be between 5.5 and 7.0 (Stenn, 2003). If the pH falls
outside the acceptable range, it may be modified with lime to increase the pH or iron
sulfate plus sulfur to lower the pH. The lime or iron sulfate must be mixed uniformly into
the soil prior to use in LID areas (Low-Impact Development Center, 2004).
n Soil depth should follow the design criteria in the Roadside Policy Manual and provide
acceptable minimum pollutant attenuation/good growing conditions for selected plants.
n The soil mix should be uniform and free of stones, stumps, roots, or other similar
material larger than 2 inches.
n When placing topsoil, it is important that the first lift of topsoil is mixed into the top of
the existing soil. This allows the roots to penetrate the underlying soil easier and helps
prevent the formation of a slip plane between the two soil layers.
n The above guidelines should provide a soil texture, an organic content, and an infiltration
rate suitable to meet the SSC-7, Soil Physical and Chemical Suitability
for Treatment (in Chapter 4), recommendations for designing infiltration systems.
A soils report evaluating these parameters should be provided to verify the
treatment capability of the soil mix.
n The texture for the soil component of the LID BMP soil mix should be loamy sand
(USDA Soil Textural Classification).
n Compost shall meet the requirements in Section 9-14 of the Standard Specifications.
Compost that is applied as a land cover must have a minimum blanket depth of 2 to 3 inches,
depending on slope and soil types. Slopes steeper than 4H:1V should receive 3 inches of
compost as a cover. Likewise, more erodible soils must be at the higher end of the compost
application range.
Compost is not recommended for areas of concentrated flow. However, the PEO can use
compost in swales or on the sides of ditches above the expected flow line.
For more information on soil amendments/applications, see the Roadside Manual (Chapter 700).
5-4.3.3 Facility Liners

Liners are intended to reduce the likelihood of stormwater pollutants reaching groundwater
beneath runoff treatment facilities. In addition to groundwater protection considerations,
liners are sometimes used to hold water, such as for a permanent pool in a wet pond.
Treatment liners amend the soil with materials that treat stormwater before it reaches more
freely draining soils. They have slow rates of infiltration, generally less than 3.0 inches per hour,
but not as slow as low-permeability liners. Treatment liners may use in-place native soils or
imported soils.
Low-permeability liners reduce infiltration to a very slow rate, generally less than 0.02 inches
per hour. These types of liners are generally used for sites with a potential for high pollutant
loading in the stormwater runoff or when it is necessary to maintain a constant pool of water
for extended periods of time. For WSDOT, low-permeability liners consist of the geosynthetic
clay liner (GCL), HDPE geomembrane liner, and PVC geomembrane liner.

April 2019
General Design Criteria

Table 5-10 shows recommendations for the type of liner generally best suited for use with
various runoff treatment facilities. The intent of this table is to ensure stormwater receives
the required minimum amount of runoff treatment before being allowed to infiltrate in areas
of relatively permeable soils.
Evenly place liners over the bottom and/or sides of the treatment area of the facility, as
indicated in Table 5-10. The PEO does not need to line areas above the treatment volume that
are required to pass flows greater than the runoff treatment flow (or volume). However, the
PEO must extend the lining to the top of the interior side slope and anchor it if the PEO cannot
permanently secure it by other means.
For low-permeability liners, the following criteria apply:
 Where the seasonal high groundwater elevation is likely to contact a low-permeability
liner, liner buoyancy may be a concern. Do not use a low-permeability liner in this
situation unless evaluated and recommended by a geotechnical engineer.
 Where grass must be planted over a low-permeability liner per the facility design,
place a minimum of 6 inches of good topsoil or compost-amended native soil
(2 inches of compost tilled into 6 inches of native till soil) over the liner in the
area to be planted; 12 inches of cover is preferred.
If a treatment liner is below the seasonal high water level, the pollutant-removal performance
of the liner must be evaluated by a geotechnical or groundwater specialist and found to be as
protective as if the liner were above the groundwater level.
Table 5-9 Lining types recommended for runoff treatment facilities.
Runoff Treatment Facility Area to Be Lined Type of Liner Recommended

RT.24 – Presettling Basin Bottom and sides Low-permeability liner or treatment
liner; if the basin intercepts the
seasonal high groundwater table,
a treatment liner is recommended
RT.12 – Wet Pond, and CO.01 – First cell: bottom and sides to Low-permeability liner or treatment
Combined Wet/Detention Pond runoff treatment design water liner; if the facility intercepts the
surface seasonal high groundwater table,
a treatment liner is recommended
Second cell: bottom and sides Treatment liner
to runoff treatment design
water surface
RT.13 – Constructed Stormwater Bottom and sides: both cells Low-permeability liner or treatment
Treatment Wetland, and CO.02 – liner; if the facility intercepts the
Combined Stormwater Treatment seasonal high groundwater table,
Wetland/Detention Pond a treatment liner is recommended
Treatment BMPs in underground Not applicable No liner needed
structures

April 2019
Design Criteria for Treatment Liners

The design criteria for treatment liners are as follows:
 A 2-foot-thick layer of soil with a minimum organic content of 5% and a minimum
cation exchange capacity (CEC) of 5 milliequivalents per 100 grams can be used as
a treatment layer beneath a runoff treatment or detention facility.
 To demonstrate that in place soils meet the above criteria, one sample per 1,000
square feet of facility area must be tested. Each sample must be a composite of
subsamples taken throughout the depth of the treatment layer (usually 2 to 6 feet
below the proposed facility invert).
 Typically, sidewall seepage is not a concern if the seepage flows through the same
stratum as the bottom of the treatment BMP. However, if the treatment soil is an
engineered soil or has very low permeability, the potential to bypass the treatment
soil through the sidewalls may be significant. In those cases, the treatment BMP
sidewalls may be lined with at least 18 inches of treatment soil, as described above,
to prevent untreated seepage. The soil thickness in the sidewalls is less than in the
bottom because unsaturated flow occurs with alternating wet-dry periods.
 Organic content is measured on a dry weight basis using ASTM D2974.
 CEC is tested using U.S. EPA laboratory method 9081.
 A soils testing laboratory must certify that imported soil meets the organic content
and CEC criteria above and must provide this certification to the local jurisdiction.
Design Criteria for Low-Permeability Liner Options

This section presents the general design criteria for the following three low-permeability liner
options: geosynthetic clay liners (GCL), HDPE geomembrane liners, and PVC geomembrane
liners. Each liner has its own advantages and disadvantages. GCL consist of two layers of
geosynthetics stitched together enclosing a layer of processed sodium bentonite clay. The clay
expands to help create a good watertight seal. An HDPE liner has excellent chemical resistance,
but is inflexible and suffers from environmental stress cracking and thermal stresses. PVC
geomembrane liners are very flexible and as a result can conform to uneven surfaces without
becoming punctured. Consult the Region Materials Office for low-permeability liner options
for each site-specific installation.
Geosynthetic Clay Liners and Geomembrane Liners
 Ensure geomembrane liners are ultraviolet (UV) light resistant and have a minimum
thickness of 30 mils. Use a thickness of 40 mils in areas of maintenance access or
where heavy machinery must be operated over the membrane.
 Bed geomembranes according to manufacturers’ recommendations.

April 2019
 Install liners so that they can be covered with 12 inches of top dressing forming the
bottom and sides of the runoff treatment facility, except for liner sand filters. Top
dressing consists of 6 inches of crushed rock covered with 6 inches of native soil. The
rock layer is to mark the location of the liner for future maintenance operations. As an
alternative to crushed rock, use 12 inches of native soil if orange plastic safety fencing
or another highly visible, continuous marker is embedded 6 inches above the
membrane.
 If possible, use liners of a contrasting color so that maintenance workers can easily
spot any area where a liner may have become exposed.
 Do not use geomembrane liners on slopes steeper than 5H:1V to prevent the top
dressing material from slipping. The PEO may use textured liners on slopes up to
3H:1V upon recommendation by a geotechnical engineer that the top dressing is
stable for all conditions of operation, including maintenance operations.
5-4.3.4 Flow Splitters

Although volume-based (wetpool) runoff treatment BMPs must be designed as on-line facilities,
the PEO can design many flow rate-based runoff treatment BMPs as either on-line or off-line.
On-line systems allow flows above the runoff treatment design flow to pass through the facility
at a lower pollutant-removal efficiency. However, it is sometimes desirable to restrict flows to
an off-line runoff treatment facility and bypass the remaining higher flows around the BMP. The
PEO can do this by splitting flows in excess of the runoff treatment design flow upstream of the
facility and diverting higher flows to a bypass pipe or channel. The bypass typically enters
a detention pond or the downstream receiving drainage system, depending on flow control
requirements. In most cases, it is the PEO’s choice whether runoff treatment facilities are
designed as on-line or off-line; an exception is oil/water separators, which must be designed
off-line.
A crucial factor in designing flow splitters is to ensure low flows are delivered to the treatment
facility up to the runoff treatment design flow rate. Above this rate, additional flows are
diverted to the bypass system, with minimal increase in head at the flow splitter structure,
to avoid surcharging the runoff treatment facility under high flow conditions.
Flow splitters are typically manholes or vaults with concrete baffles. In place of baffles, the
splitter mechanism may be a half tee section with a solid top and an orifice in the bottom of the
tee section. A full tee option may also be used, as described below in General Design Criteria.
Two possible design options for flow splitters are shown in Figures 5-60 and 5-61. Other
equivalent designs that achieve the result of splitting low flows and diverting higher flows
around the facility are also acceptable.

April 2019

 Design flow splitters to deliver the runoff treatment design flow rate to the runoff
treatment facility. For the basic sand filter, which is sized based on volume, use the
runoff treatment design flow rate to design the splitter.
 Locate the top of the weir at the water surface for the design flow. Remaining flows
enter the bypass line. Flows modeled using a continuous simulation model should
use 15-minute time steps, if available. Otherwise, use 1-hour time steps.
 Minimize the maximum head for flow in excess of the runoff treatment design flow.
Specifically, flow to the runoff treatment facility in the 100-year event must not
increase the runoff treatment design flow by more than 10%.
 Use either the Figure 5-60 or the Figure 5-61 design (or an equivalent design).
 As an alternative to using the solid top plate shown in Figure 5-61, the PEO may use a
full tee section with the top of the tee at the 100-year water surface. This alternative
routes emergency overflows (if the overflow pipe is plugged) through the runoff
treatment facility rather than backing up in the splitter manhole.
 The PEO may need to use a modified flow splitter for special applications. The baffle
wall may be fitted with a notch and adjustable weir plate to proportion runoff
volumes other than high flows.
 For ponding facilities, address backwater effects in designing the height of the
standpipe in the manhole.
 Provide ladder or step-and-handhold access. If the weir wall is higher than 36 inches,
use two ladders—one on either side of the wall.
Materials
 Install the splitter baffle in a Type 2 manhole, catch basin, or vault.
 Ensure the baffle wall is made of reinforced concrete, or another suitable material
resistant to corrosion, and have a minimum 4-inch thickness. The minimum clearance
between the top of the baffle wall and the bottom of the manhole cover must be
4 feet; otherwise, provide dual access points.
 Ensure all metal parts are corrosion resistant. Examples of preferred materials include
aluminum, stainless steel, and plastic. Avoid the use of zinc and galvanized materials—
because of their aquatic toxicity potential—when substitutes are available. Do not
paint metal parts for corrosion resistance because paint does not provide long-term
protection.

April 2019
Source: King County

Figure 5-58 Flow splitter: Option A

April 2019
Source: King County

Figure 5-59 Flow splitter: Option B

April 2019
5-4.3.5 Flow Spreading Options

Flow spreaders function to uniformly spread flows across the inflow portion of runoff treatment
facilities (such as a Media Filter Drain Type 4 – Type 7), biofiltration swale, or vegetated filter
strip). Five flow spreader options are presented in this section:
 Option A – Anchored plate
 Option B – Concrete sump box
 Option C – Notched curb spreader
 Option D – Through-curb ports
 Option E – Interrupted curb
 Option F – Slotted flow-dispersal pipe
 Option G – Perforated pipe in a gravel-backfilled trench with a notched grade board
Use options A through C, F, and G for spreading flows that are concentrated. Use any one of
these options when spreading is required by the facility design criteria. The PEO can also use
options A through C for unconcentrated flows; in some cases, they must be used, such as to
correct for moderate grade changes along a vegetated filter strip.
Use options D and E only for flows that are already unconcentrated and enter a vegetated filter
strip or continuous inflow biofiltration swale. Other flow spreader options are permitted with
approval from the HQ Hydraulics Section.

Where flow enters the flow spreader through a pipe, it is recommended that the pipe be
submerged to the extent practicable to dissipate energy as much as possible.
For higher inflows (greater than 5 cubic feet per second for the 100-year storm), a Type 1 catch
basin should be positioned in the spreader, and the inflow pipe should enter the catch basin
with flows exiting through the top grate. The top of the grate should be lower than the level
spreader plate or, if a notched spreader is used, lower than the bottom of the V-notches.
For guidelines on outfall protection, see Section 5-4.3.6.
Option A – Anchored Plate
 An anchored plate flow spreader (see Figure 5-62) must be preceded by a sump having
a minimum depth of 8 inches and a minimum width of 24 inches. If not otherwise
stabilized, the sump area must be lined to reduce erosion and to dissipate energy.
 The top surface of the flow spreader plate must be level, projecting a minimum of
2 inches above the ground surface of the runoff treatment facility, or V-notched with
notches 6 to 10 inches on center and 1 to 6 inches deep (use shallower notches with
closer spacing). Alternative designs may also be used.

April 2019
 A flow spreader plate must extend horizontally beyond the bottom width of the
facility to prevent water from eroding the side slope. The horizontal extent should
protect the bank for all flows up to the 100-year flow or the maximum flow that
enters the runoff treatment facility.
 Flow spreader plates must be securely fixed in place.
 Flow spreader plates may be made of wood, metal, fiberglass-reinforced plastic, or
other durable material. If wood, pressure-treated 4-inch by 10-inch lumber/landscape
timbers are acceptable.
 Anchor posts must be 4-inch-square concrete, tubular stainless steel, or other material
resistant to decay.
Option B – Concrete Sump Box
 The wall of the downstream side of a rectangular concrete sump box (see Figure 5-12
to Figure 5-14) must extend a minimum of 2 inches above the treatment bed. This
serves as a weir to spread the flows uniformly across the bed.
 The downstream wall of a sump box must have wing walls at both ends. Sidewalls
and returns must be slightly higher than the weir so that erosion of the side slope
is minimized.
 Concrete for a sump box can be either cast-in-place or precast, but the bottom of
the sump must be reinforced with wire mesh for cast-in-place sumps.
 Sump boxes must be placed over bases consisting of 4 inches of crushed rock, ⅝-inch
minus, to help ensure the sump remains level.
Option C – Notched Curb Spreader
Notched curb spreader sections (see Figure 5-63) must be made of extruded concrete laid side
by side and level. Typically, five teeth per 4-foot section provides good spacing. The space
between adjacent teeth forms a V-notch.

April 2019
Figure 5-60 Flow spreader Option A: Anchor plate

April 2019
Figure 5-61 Flow spreader Option C: Notched curb spreader.
Option D – Through-Curb Ports

Unconcentrated flows from paved areas entering vegetated filter strips or continuous inflow
biofiltration swales can use curb ports (see Figure 5-64) or interrupted curbs (Option E) to
allow flows to enter the strip or swale. Curb ports use fabricated openings that allow concrete
curbing to be poured or extruded, with an opening through the base to admit water to the
runoff treatment facility.

April 2019
Openings in the curb must be at regular intervals—at least every 6 feet (minimum). The width
of each curb port opening must be a minimum of 11 inches. Approximately 15% or more of the
curb section length should be in open ports, and no port should discharge more than about 10%
of the flow.
Option E – Interrupted Curb
Interrupted curbs are sections of curb placed to have gaps spaced at regular intervals along the
total width (or length, depending on the facility) of the treatment area. At a minimum, gaps
must be every 6 feet to allow distribution of flows into the treatment facility before the flows
become too concentrated. The opening must be a minimum of 11 inches. As a general rule,
no opening should discharge more than 10% of the overall flow entering the facility.
Figure 5-62 Flow spreader Option D: Through-curb port.
Option F – Slotted pipe

A slotted pipe redispersal system is pipe that has slots or openings along the pipe’s spring line.
The slotted pipe redispersal system has a maximum length of 200 feet and maximum flow rate
of 2.0 cfs for the 100-year storm event. If a flow splitter is used upstream of the slotted pipe
system so that it is only receiving off-line flows, then the maximum of 2.0 cfs applies to the WQ
storm event. (See Figures 5-26 – 5-29 and 5-65 for details on the slotted pipe configuration.)
Mounding of water in the slotted pipe can be a concern. Use Manning’s equation (see below) to
ensure the height of water due to the mounding in the pipe doesn’t exceed a height of 0.021 ft.
(0.25 inches) for the 100-year storm event (if on-line) or the WQ storm event (if off-line).

April 2019
Figure 5-63 Slotted pipe details.

April 2019
2
1.49
𝑄𝑄 = × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝑅𝑅 3 × �𝑆𝑆𝑓𝑓 (E-34)
𝑛𝑛
where: Q = flow in a given length of slotted pipe, ft3/s

1.49 = unit conversion constant for English units
n = Manning's roughness coefficient for PVC pipe = 0.012
A = cross-sectional area of the flow below the slot opening (ft2); since
the slots are positioned with the bottom of the slot at the spring line,
this value was assumed to be ½ of the cross-sectional pipe area
R = hydraulic radius (ft); this value was assumed to be associated with
the pipe flowing at 50% of the full flow condition
sf = friction gradient/slope for uniform flow conditions (ft/ft)
To minimize the mounding effect, consider allowing inflows to enter the slotted dispersion pipe
at its midpoint. Flow was split evenly in each direction within the slotted pipe, so the flow rate
considered is half of what it would be if flow entered from one end. Slot lengths are 24 inches
in length, 2 inches in height, and spaced 12 inches apart. A spreadsheet is available to help
the designer determine the number of slots, slotted pipe length, and mounding:
Figure 5-64 Slotted pipe mounding.

Inspect and field-verify the installation during construction to ensure the flow spreader is
working as designed and is spreading flows evenly. It may take several iterations to get the
flow spreader to work as designed.
Option G– Perforated pipe in a gravel-backfilled trench with notched grade board
The perforated pipe in a gravel-backfilled trench and notched grade board system has a
maximum length of 100 feet and maximum flow rate of 1.0 cfs for the 100-year storm event.
If a flow splitter is used upstream of the perforated pipe redispersal system so that it is only
receiving “off-line” flows, then the maximum of 1.0 cfs applies to the WQ storm event. The
mounding issues seen in the slotted pipe redispersal system do not apply to this perforated
pipe redispersal system. (See Figure 5-67 for details on the perforated pipe in a gavel backfilled
trench with notched grade board.) Inspect and field-verify the installation during construction
to ensure the flow spreader is working as designed and is spreading flows evenly. It may take
several iterations to get the flow spreader to work as designed.

April 2019
Figure 5-65 Flow dispersal trench.

April 2019
Figure 5-66 Alternative flow dispersal trench.
5-4.3.6 Pipe Outlets

Properly designed pipe outlets with energy dissipaters are critical to reducing the chance of
adverse impacts as the result of concentrated discharges from pipe systems and culverts, both
on site and downstream. Energy dissipaters include riprap protected outlets, splash pads;
impact basins, and stilling basins/wells. See the WSDOT Hydraulics Manual 3-4.7 for design
information and details for energy dissipaters.
5-5 Operations and Maintenance

Inadequate maintenance is a common cause of failure for stormwater control facilities. All
stormwater facilities require routine inspection and maintenance and thus must be designed
so that these functions can be easily conducted.
5-5.1 Typical BMP Maintenance Standards

The facility-specific maintenance standards contained in this section (see Tables 5-12 through
5-2377) are intended to be used for determining when maintenance actions are required for
conditions identified through inspection. They are not intended to be measures of a facility’s
required condition at all times between inspections. In other words, exceeding these conditions
April 2019
at any time between inspections or maintenance does not automatically constitute a need for
immediate maintenance. Based upon inspection observations, however, the inspection and
maintenance schedules must be adjusted to minimize the length of time that a facility is in
a condition that requires a maintenance action.
5-5.2 Natural and Landscaped Areas Designated as Stormwater

Management Facilities
Maintenance of natural and landscaped areas designated as stormwater management facilities
requires special attention. Generally, perform maintenance in these areas with light equipment.
Heavy machinery and vehicles with large treads or tires can compact the ground surface,
decreasing the effectiveness of the BMPs.
5-5.2.1 Documenting and Preserving Intended Functions

Natural and landscaped areas designated as stormwater management facilities must be
identified in the field and documented for future reference. The locations of these areas are
documented in the WSDOT GIS Workbench, right of way plans, and as-built plans. During the
post-construction meeting, these treatment facilities are identified to maintenance personnel.
Note: Specially marked delineators are placed to notify maintenance personnel that a sensitive
feature is in the area. The type and placement of this marker must be worked out between the
maintenance and PEO.
5-5.2.2 Sensitive Area Mapping

State roadways have been surveyed to provide information to WSDOT maintenance crews so
that BMPs may be employed to eliminate or reduce the impacts of maintenance activities on
streams, wetlands, and water bodies. The primary objective of the survey was to identify all
locations where these sensitive areas are within 300 feet of a roadway. A secondary objective
was to note those areas that are particularly sensitive or insensitive in order to support
appropriate maintenance actions and application of BMPs. This effort does not eliminate the
need for detailed biological evaluation of resources during highway project planning. This
survey information is located on the GIS Workbench. When wetlands on WSDOT-owned right
of way are delineated and new wetlands created, this information must be documented in the
GIS Workbench. The GIS Workbench is used to update the Maintenance Roadside Sensitive
Area Atlases.
5-5.3 Stormwater BMP Signing Requirements

All stormwater BMPs need to be properly signed in the field. BMPs fall into three general
categories: linear BMPs, pond-type BMPs, and underground stormwater BMPs. A signing
scheme is presented below for each category. See WSDOT Standard Plans M-24.65-00 and M-
24.66-00.

April 2019
Table 5-10 Maintenance standards for detention ponds.
Maintenance Defect or Condition When Results Expected When

Component Problem Maintenance is Needed Maintenance is Performed
General Trash and Accumulations exceed 5 cubic feet (about equal to Trash and debris are cleared from site.
debris the amount of trash needed to fill one standard-size
garbage can) per 1,000 square feet. In general,
there should be no visual evidence of dumping.
If less than threshold, all trash and debris will be
removed as part of the next scheduled
maintenance.
Poisonous Poisonous or nuisance vegetation may constitute a No danger is posed by poisonous
vegetation and hazard to maintenance personnel or the public. vegetation where maintenance
noxious weeds Noxious weeds as defined by state or local personnel or the public might normally
regulations are evident. be. (Coordinate with local health
department.)
(Apply requirements of adopted integrated pest
management [IPM] policies for the use of Complete eradication of noxious weeds
herbicides). may not be possible. Compliance with
state or local eradication policies is
required.
Contaminants Oil, gasoline, contaminants, or other pollutants are No contaminants or pollutants are
and pollution evident. present.
(Coordinate removal/cleanup with local water
quality response agency.)
Rodent holes For facilities acting as a dam or berm: rodent holes Rodents are destroyed and dam or
are evident or there is evidence of water piping berm repaired.
through dam or berm via rodent holes. (Coordinate with local health
department; coordinate with Ecology
Dam Safety Office if pond exceeds 10
acre-feet.)
Beaver dams Dam results in change or function of the facility. Facility is returned to design function.
(Coordinate trapping of beavers and
removal of dams with appropriate
permitting agencies.)
Insects Insects such as wasps and hornets interfere with Insects are destroyed or removed from
maintenance activities. site.
Insecticides are applied in compliance
with adopted IPM policies.
Tree growth Tree growth does not allow maintenance access or Trees do not hinder maintenance
and hazard interferes with maintenance activity (slope mowing, activities. Harvested trees can be
trees silt removal, vactoring, or equipment movements). processed or converted to mulch and
If trees are not interfering with access or either kept on site where it can be used
maintenance, do not remove. as needed around the BMP, or taken
Dead, diseased, or dying trees are observed. off site.
(Use a certified arborist to determine health of tree Hazard trees are removed.
or removal requirements.)
Side slopes Erosion Eroded damage is over 2 inches deep and cause of Slopes are stabilized using appropriate
of pond damage is still present, or there is potential for erosion control measures (such as rock
continued erosion. reinforcement, planting of grass, and
Erosion is observed on a compacted berm compaction).
embankment. If erosion is occurring on compacted
berms, a licensed civil engineer should
be consulted to resolve source of
erosion.

April 2019
Table 5-10 Maintenance standards for detention ponds (continued).

Storage area Sediment Accumulated sediment exceeds 10% of the Sediment is cleaned out to designed
designed pond depth, unless otherwise specified, or pond shape and depth. Pond is
affects inletting or outletting condition of the reseeded if necessary to control
facility. erosion.
Liner (if Liner is visible and has more than three ¼-inch Liner is repaired or replaced. Liner is
applicable) holes in it. fully covered.
Pond berms Settlements Any part of berm has settled 4 inches lower than Dike is built back to the design
(dikes) the design elevation. (If settlement is apparent, elevation.
measure berm to determine amount of
settlement.)
Settling can be an indication of more severe
problems with the berm or outlet works. A licensed
civil engineer should be consulted to determine the
source of the settlement.
Piping Water flow is discernible through pond berm. Piping is eliminated. Erosion potential is
Ongoing erosion is observed, with potential for resolved.
erosion to continue.
(Recommend a geotechnical engineer be called in
to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend
repair of condition.)
Emergency Tree growth Tree growth on emergency spillways reduces Trees should be removed. If root
overflow/ spillway conveyance capacity and may cause system is small (base less than 4
spillway and erosion elsewhere on the pond perimeter due to inches), the root system may be left in
berms over uncontrolled overtopping. place; otherwise, the roots should be
4 feet high Tree growth on berms over 4 feet high may lead to removed and the berm restored. A
piping through the berm, which could lead to licensed civil engineer should be
failure of the berm and related erosion or flood consulted for proper berm/spillway
damage. restoration.
Piping Water flow is discernible through pond berm. Piping is eliminated. Erosion potential is
Ongoing erosion is observed, with potential for resolved.
erosion to continue.
(Recommend a geotechnical engineer be called in
to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend
repair of condition.)
Emergency Spillway lining Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in Rocks and pad depth are restored to
overflow/ insufficient area 5 square feet or larger, or native soil is design standards.
spillway exposed at the top of outflow path of spillway.
(Riprap on inside slopes need not be replaced.)

April 2019
Table 5-11 Maintenance standards for bioinfiltration ponds/infiltration trenches/basins.
Maintenance Condition When Results Expected When

Defect or Problem
Component Maintenance is Needed Maintenance is Performed
General Trash and debris See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
Poisonous/noxious See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
vegetation
Contaminants and See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
pollution
Rodent holes See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
Storage area Sediment Water ponds in infiltration pond after rainfall ceases Sediment is removed or
and appropriate time has been allowed for facility is cleaned so that
infiltration. infiltration system works
(A percolation test pit or test of facility indicates according to design.
facility is working at only 90% of its designed
capabilities. If 2 inches or more of sediment present,
remove sediment).
Rock filters Sediment and By visual inspection, little or no water flows through Gravel in rock filter is
debris filter during heavy rainstorms. replaced.
Side slopes of Erosion See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
pond
Emergency Tree growth See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
overflow/spillway
and berms over Piping See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
4 feet high
Emergency Rock missing See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
overflow/spillway
Erosion See Table 5-23 (wet ponds). See Table 5-23 (wet ponds).
Presettling ponds Facility or sump Sediment/debris exceeds 6 inches or designed Sediment is removed.
and vaults filled with sediment sediment trap depth.
or debris

April 2019
Table 5-12 Maintenance standards for closed treatment systems (tanks/vaults).

Defect or Problem
Storage area Plugged air vents One-half of the cross section of a vent is blocked at Vents are open and
any point or the vent is damaged. functioning.
Debris and Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10% of the All sediment and debris are
sediment diameter of the storage area for ½ length of removed from storage area.
storage vault or any point depth exceeds 15% of
diameter.
(Example: 72-inch storage tank requires cleaning
when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches for more
than ½ the length of the tank.)
Joints between Openings or voids allow material to be transported All joints between tank/pipe
tank/pipe section into facility. sections are sealed.
(Will require engineering analysis to determine
structural stability.)
Tank/pipe bent Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape for more Tank/pipe is repaired or
out of shape than 10% of its design shape. replaced to design
(Review required by engineer to determine specifications.
structural stability.)
Vault structure: Cracks are wider than ½ inch and there is evidence Vault is replaced or repaired to
includes cracks in of soil particles entering the structure through the design specifications and is
walls or bottom, cracks, or maintenance/inspection personnel structurally sound.
damage to frame determine that the vault is not structurally sound.
or top slab
Cracks are wider than ½ inch at the joint of any No cracks are more than
inlet/outlet pipe, or there is evidence of soil ¼-inch wide at the joint of the
particles entering the vault through the walls. inlet/outlet pipe.
Manhole Cover not in place Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open Manhole is closed.
manhole requires maintenance.
Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper
mechanism not maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts into tools.
working frame have less than ½ inch of thread (may not
apply to self-locking lids).
Cover difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove lid after Cover can be removed and
remove applying normal lifting pressure. reinstalled by one
Intent: To prevent cover from sealing off access to maintenance person.
maintenance.
Ladder unsafe Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design
misalignment, unsecure attachment to structure standards. Allows maintenance
wall, rust, or cracks. person safe access.
Catch basins See Table 5-15 See Table 5-15 (catch basins). See Table 5-15 (catch basins).
(catch basins).

April 2019
Table 5-13 Maintenance standards for control structure/flow restrictor.

Defect or Problem
General Trash and debris Accumulation exceeds 25% of sump depth or is Control structure orifice is not
(includes sediment) within 1 foot below orifice plate. blocked. All trash and debris are
removed.
Structural damage Structure is not securely attached to manhole Structure is securely attached to
wall. wall and outlet pipe.
Structure is not in upright position; allow up to Structure is in correct position.
10% from plumb.
Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight and Connections to outlet pipe are
show signs of rust. watertight; structure is repaired
or replaced and works as
designed.
Holes other than designed holes are observed in Structure has no holes other
the structure. than designed holes.
Cleanout gate Damaged or missing Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate is watertight and works as
designed.
Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and down easily
maintenance person. and is watertight.
Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as
designed.
Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Gate is repaired or replaced to
meet design standards.
Orifice plate Damaged or missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and works as
missing, out-of-place, or bent orifice plate. designed.
Obstructions Trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation blocks the Plate is free of all obstructions
plate. and works as designed.
Overflow pipe Obstructions Trash or debris blocks (or has the potential to Pipe is free of all obstructions
block) the overflow pipe. and works as designed.
Manhole See Table 5-13 See Table 5-13 (closed treatment systems). See Table 5-13 (closed
(closed treatment treatment systems).
systems).
Catch basin See Table 5-15 See Table 5-15 (catch basins). See Table 5-15 (catch basins).
(catch basins).

April 2019
Table 5-14 Maintenance standards for catch basins.

General Trash and debris Trash or debris is immediately in front of the catch No trash or debris is
basin opening or is blocking inletting capacity of the immediately in front of catch
basin by more than 10%. basin or on grate opening.
Trash or debris (in the basin) exceeds 60% of the No trash or debris is in the
sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin catch basin.
to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin,
but in no case is clearance less than 6 inches from
the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe.
Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocks more Inlet and outlet pipes are free
than ⅓ of its height. of trash or debris.
Dead animals or vegetation could generate odors No vegetation or dead
that might cause complaints or dangerous gases animals are present within
(such as methane). the catch basin.
Sediment Sediment (in the basin) exceeds 60% of the sump No sediment is in the catch
depth as measured from the bottom of the basin to basin.
invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but
in no case is clearance less than 6 inches from the
sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe.
Structure Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and
damage to cracks wider than ¼ inch. cracks.
frame and/or Intent: To make sure no material is running into
top slab basin.
Frame is not sitting flush on top slab (separation of Frame is sitting flush on the
more than ¾ inch of the frame from the top slab). riser rings or top slab and is
Frame is not securely attached. firmly attached.
Fractures or Maintenance person judges that structure is Basin is replaced or repaired
cracks in basin unsound. to design standards.
walls/bottom
Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider than Pipe is regrouted and secure
½ inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any at the basin wall.
inlet/outlet pipe, or there is evidence that soil
particles have entered catch basin through cracks.
Settlement/ Failure of basin has created a safety, function, or Basin is replaced or repaired
misalignment design problem. to design standards.
Vegetation Vegetation is growing across and blocking more than No vegetation blocks the
10% of the basin opening. opening to the basin.
Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints is more No vegetation or root growth
than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches apart. is present.
Contamination Oil, gasoline, contaminants, or other pollutants are No pollution is present.
and pollution evident.
(Coordinate removal/cleanup with local water quality
response agency.)
Catch basin cover Cover not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open Catch basin cover is closed.
place catch basin requires maintenance.
Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance Mechanism opens with
mechanism not person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less proper tools.
working than ½ inch of thread.
Catch basin cover Cover difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove lid after Cover can be removed by one
(continued) remove applying normal lifting pressure. maintenance person.
Intent: To prevent cover from sealing off access to
maintenance.

April 2019
Table 5-14 Maintenance standards for catch basins (continued).

Ladder Ladder unsafe Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, insecure Ladder meets design standards
attachment to basin wall, misalignment, rust, and allows maintenance staff
cracks, or sharp edges. safe access.
Metal grates Grate opening Grate opening is wider than ⅞ inch. Grate opening meets design
(if applicable) unsafe standards.
Trash and debris Trash and debris block more than 20% of grate Grate is free of trash and
surface inletting capacity. debris.
Damaged or Grate is missing or components of the grate are Grate is in place and meets
missing broken. design standards.
Table 5-15 Maintenance standards for debris barriers (such as trash racks).

Components Problem Maintenance is Needed Maintenance is Performed
General Trash and debris Trash or debris plugs more than 20% of the Barrier is cleared to design flow
openings in the barrier. capacity.
Metal Damaged/missing Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars are in place with no bends
bars more than ¾ inch.
Bars are missing or entire barrier is missing. Bars are in place according to
design.
Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% Barrier is replaced or repaired to
deterioration to any part of barrier. design standards.
Inlet/outlet pipe Debris barrier is missing or not attached to pipe. Barrier is firmly attached to pipe.

April 2019
Table 5-16 Maintenance standards for energy dissipaters.

Components Problem Maintenance is Needed Maintenance is Performed
External:
Rock pad Missing or moved rock Only one layer of rock exists above Rock pad is replaced to design
native soil in area 5 square feet or standards.
larger, or native soil is exposed.
Erosion Soil erosion is evident in or adjacent Rock pad is replaced to design
to rock pad. standards.
Dispersion trench Pipe plugged with sediment Accumulated sediment exceeds Pipe is cleaned/flushed so that it
20% of the design depth. matches design.
Not discharging water There is visual evidence of water Trench is redesigned or rebuilt
properly discharging at concentrated points to standards.
along trench—normal condition is a
“sheet flow” of water along trench.
Intent: To prevent erosion damage.
Perforations plugged Over ½ of perforations in pipe are Perforated pipe is cleaned or
plugged with debris and sediment. replaced.
Water flows out top of Maintenance person observes or Facility is rebuilt or redesigned
“distributor” catch basin receives credible report of water to standards.
flowing out during any storm less
than the design storm, or water is
causing (or appears likely to cause)
damage.
Receiving area over- Water in receiving area is causing There is no danger of landslides.
saturated (or has potential of causing)
landslide problems.
Internal:
Manhole/chamber Worn or damaged post, Structure dissipating flow Structure is replaced to design
baffles, side of chamber deteriorates to ½ of original size standards.
or any concentrated worn spot
exceeds 1 square foot, which
would make structure unsound.
Other defects See entire contents of Table 5-15 See entire contents of Table
(catch basins). 5-15 (catch basins).

April 2019
Table 5-17 Maintenance standards for biofiltration swale.
Maintenance Defect or Condition When Recommended Maintenance

Component Problem Maintenance is Needed to Correct Problem
General Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches. Remove sediment deposits on grass
accumulation on treatment area of the swale. When finished,
grass swale should be level from side to side and
drain freely toward outlet. There should be
no areas of standing water once inflow has
ceased.
Standing water Water stands in the swale between Any of the following may apply: remove
storms and does not drain freely. sediment or trash blockages; improve grade
from head to foot of swale; remove clogged
check dams; add underdrains; or convert to a
wet biofiltration swale.
Flow spreader Flow spreader is uneven or clogged so Level the spreader and clean so that flows are
that flows are not uniformly spread evenly over entire swale width.
distributed through entire swale
width.
Constant base Small quantities of water continually Add a low-flow pea gravel drain the length of
flow flow through the swale, even when it the swale, or bypass the base flow around the
has been dry for weeks, and an swale.
eroded, muddy channel has formed in
the swale bottom.
Poor vegetation Grass is sparse or bare, or eroded Consult with roadside vegetation specialists
coverage patches occur in more than 10% of the to determine why grass growth is poor and
swale bottom. correct the offending condition. Reseed into
loosened, fertile soil or replant with plugs of
grass from the upper slope: plant in the swale
bottom at 8-inch intervals.
Vegetation Grass becomes excessively tall Mow vegetation or remove nuisance
(greater than 10 inches); nuisance vegetation so that flow is not impeded. Grass
weeds and other vegetation start to should be mowed to a height of 6 inches.
take over. Mowing is not required for wet biofiltration
swales. However, fall harvesting of very dense
vegetation after plant die-back is
recommended.
Excessive shading Grass growth is poor because sunlight If possible, trim back overhanging limbs and
does not reach swale. remove brushy vegetation on adjacent slopes.
Inlet/outlet Inlet/outlet areas are clogged with Remove material so there is no clogging or
sediment/debris. blockage in the inlet and outlet area.
Trash and debris Trash and debris have accumulated in Remove trash and debris from bioswale.
the swale.
Erosion/scouring Swale bottom has eroded or scoured For ruts or bare areas less than 12 inches
due to flow channelization or high wide, repair the damaged area by filling with
flows. 50/50 mixture of crushed gravel and compost.
If bare areas are large (generally greater than
12 inches wide), the swale should be
regraded and reseeded.
For smaller bare areas, overseed when bare
spots are evident, or take plugs of grass from
the upper slope and plant in the swale
bottom at 8-inch intervals.

April 2019
Table 5-18 Maintenance standards for vegetated filter strip.

General Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches. Remove sediment deposits. Relevel so slope
accumulation on grass is even and flows pass evenly through strip.
Vegetation Grass becomes excessively tall Mow grass and control nuisance vegetation
(greater than 10 inches); nuisance so that flow is not impeded. Grass should be
weeds and other vegetation start to mowed to a height of 6 inches.
take over.
Trash and debris Trash and debris have accumulated Remove trash and debris from filter.
on the vegetated filter strip.
Erosion/scouring Areas have eroded or scoured due For ruts or bare areas less than 12 inches
to flow channelization or high flows. wide, repair the damaged area by filling
with a 50/50 mixture of crushed gravel and
compost. The grass will creep in over the
rock in time. If bare areas are large,
generally greater than 12 inches wide, the
vegetated filter strip should be regraded
and reseeded. For smaller bare areas,
overseed when bare spots are evident.
Flow spreader Flow spreader is uneven or clogged Level the spreader and clean so that flows
so that flows are not uniformly are spread evenly over entire filter width.
distributed over entire filter width.
Table 5-19 Maintenance standards for media filter drain.

General Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches or Remove sediment deposits on grass treatment
accumulation creates uneven grading that interferes area of the embankment. When finished,
on grass filter with sheet flow. embankment should be level from side to side
strip and drain freely toward the toe of the
embankment slope. There should be no areas
of standing water once inflow has ceased.
No-vegetation Flow spreader is uneven or clogged so that Level the spreader and clean so that flows are
zone/flow flows are not uniformly distributed over spread evenly over entire embankment width.
spreader entire embankment width.
Poor Grass is sparse or bare, or eroded patches Consult with roadside vegetation specialists to
vegetation are observed in more than 10% of the determine why grass growth is poor and
coverage grass strip surface area. correct the offending condition. Reseed into
loosened, fertile soil or compost or replant
with plugs of grass from the upper slope.
Vegetation Grass becomes excessively tall (greater Mow vegetation or remove nuisance
than 10 inches); nuisance weeds and other vegetation so that flow is not impeded. Grass
vegetation start to take over. should be mowed to a height of 6 inches.
Media filter Water is seen on the surface of the media Excavate and replace all of the media filter
drain mix filter drain mix from storms that are less drain mix contained within the media filter
replacement than a 6-month, 24-hour precipitation drain.
event. Maintenance also needed on a 10-
year cycle and during a preservation
project.
Excessive Grass growth is poor because sunlight If possible, trim back overhanging limbs and
shading does not reach embankment. remove brushy vegetation on adjacent slopes.
Trash and Trash and debris have accumulated on Remove trash and debris from embankment.
debris embankment.
Flooding of When media filter drain is inundated by Evaluate media filter drain material for
media filter flood water acceptable infiltration rate and replace if
drain media filter drain does not meet long-term
infiltration rate standards.

April 2019
Table 5-20 Maintenance standards for permeable pavement.
The BMP maintenance table for permeable pavement has been moved to the HRM Category 1
BMPs document found here:
Table 5-21 Maintenance standards for dispersion areas (natural and engineered).

General Sediment accumulation Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches. Remove sediment deposits while
on dispersion area minimizing compaction of soils in
dispersion area. Relevel so slope is
even and flows pass evenly
over/through dispersion area.
Handwork is recommended rather
than use of heavy machinery.
Vegetation Vegetation is sparse or dying; Control nuisance vegetation. Add
significant areas are without ground vegetation, preferably native ground
cover. cover, bushes, and trees (where
consistent with safety standards) to
bare areas or areas where the initial
plantings have died.
Trash and debris Trash and debris have accumulated on Remove trash and debris from filter.
the dispersion area. Handwork is recommended rather
than use of heavy machinery.
Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured areas due to flow For ruts or bare areas less than 12
channelization, or high flows are inches wide, repair the damaged area
observed. by filling with crushed gravel/compost
mix (see Section 5-4.3.2 for the
compost specifications). The grass will
creep in over the rock mix in time. If
bare areas are large (generally greater
than 12 inches wide), the dispersion
area should be reseeded. For smaller
bare areas, overseed when bare spots
are evident. Look for opportunities to
locate flow spreaders, such as
dispersion trenches and rock pads.
Flow spreader Flow spreader is uneven or clogged so Level the spreader and clean so that
that flows are not uniformly flows are spread evenly over entire
distributed over entire filter width. filter width.

April 2019
Table 5-22 Maintenance standards for wet ponds.

General Water level First cell is empty, doesn’t hold water. Line the first cell to maintain at least
4 feet of water. Although the second
cell may drain, the first cell must
remain full to control turbulence of the
incoming flow and reduce sediment
resuspension.
Trash and debris Accumulations exceed 1 cubic foot Remove trash and debris from pond.
per 1,000 square feet of pond area.
Inlet/outlet pipe Inlet/outlet pipe is clogged with Unclog and unblock inlet and outlet
sediment or debris material. piping.
Sediment accumulation in Sediment accumulations in pond Remove sediment from pond bottom.
pond bottom bottom exceed the depth of sediment
zone plus 6 inches, usually in the first
cell.
Oil sheen on water Oil sheen is prevalent and visible. Remove oil from water using oil-
absorbent pads or Vactor truck. Locate
and correct source of oil. If chronic low
levels of oil persist, plant wetland
species such as Juncus effusus (soft
rush), which can uptake small
concentrations of oil.
Erosion Pond side slopes or bottom show Stabilize slopes using proper erosion
evidence of erosion or scouring in control measures and repair methods.
excess of 6 inches and the potential
for continued erosion is evident.
Settlement of pond Any part of the pond dike/berm has Repair dike/berm to specifications.
dike/berm settled 4 inches or lower than the
design elevation, or the inspector
determines dike/berm is unsound.
Internal berm Berm dividing cells are not level. Level berm surface so that water flows
evenly over entire length of berm.
Overflow/spillway Rock is missing and soil exposed at Replace rocks to specifications.
top of spillway or outside slope.

April 2019
5-6 References
API. 1990. Design and operation of oil-water separators. American Petroleum Institute
Publication 421, February 1990.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1978. Hydraulic design of stilling basins and energy dissipaters,
Publication EM 25. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Cahill Associates. Section 02725 – General porous paving and groundwater infiltration beds.
In General Specifications only: Porous Paving, 02725-1.
Cahill, T.H., Adams, M., & Marm, C. (2003, September/October). Porous asphalt: The right
choice for porous pavements. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, 26-40.
Chang, G.C. 2000. Review of stormwater manual, sand filtration basins for Department of
Ecology, State of Washington. November 5, 2000.
Chollack, Tracy, et al., 2001. Porous Pavement Phase 1 Evaluation Report. Seattle Public
Utilities, Report, Seattle, Washington. February 7, 2001.
Chow, V.T. 1959. Open-channel flow. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
City of Austin. 1988. Design guidelines for water quality control basins, environmental criteria
manual. June 1988. Austin, Texas.
Claytor and Schueler. 1996. “Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. Center for Watershed
Protection. Chesapeake Research Consortium. Silver Spring, MD.
Daugherty, R.L. and J.B. Franzini. 1977. “Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications,”
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ecology. 2004. Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington. Washington State
Department of Ecology.
Ecology. 2004. “Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington.” Revised
Ecology Publication # 04-06-15. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication.
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands/Tools-resources/Rating-systems
Ecology. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Washington State
Ecology. 2005. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington
State Department of Ecology Publication. https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-
Shorelines/Wetlands/Tools-resources/Rating-systems
Ecology. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington. Washington
State Department of Ecology Publication. https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-
Shorelines/Wetlands/Tools-resources/Rating-systems
Ecology. 2012. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Washington State

April 2019
Ecology. 2019. Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington. Washington State
Federal Highway Administration. 2002. Construction of Pavement Subsurface Drainage
Systems. Publication FHWA IF-01-014. Washington, D.C.
FHWA. 1983. Hydraulic design of energy dissipaters for culverts and channels. Hydraulic
Engineering Circular No. 14 (HEC-14), FHWA-EPD-86-110. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
FHWA. 1995. Geosynthetic design and construction guidelines. Publication No. FHWA HI-95-
038. Federal Highway Administration. May 1995.
FHWA. 2002. Construction of pavement subsurface drainage systems. Publication No. FHWA-IF-
01-014, HIPA-20/1-02(500). January 3, 2002. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.
Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, Section 3.3.5.
Harrison, R.B., M.A. Grey, C.L. Henry and D. Xue. 1997. Field test of compost amendment to
reduce nutrient runoff, final report.
Hitchcock, G.L and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press, Seattle.
Hortus Northwest. 1991. Wetland plants for western Oregon.
Jaisinghani, R.A., et al., 1979. A study of oil/water separation in corrugated plate separators.
Journal of Engineering for Industry, November, 1979.
Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 893p.
King County. 1998. King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. King County
Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA.
Lau, Marsalek, and Rochfort. 2000. Use of a biofilter for treatment of heavy metals in highway
runoff. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 35(3):563–580.
Metro. 1990. Water pollution control aspects of aquatic plants. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle.
Miller, S. 2000. Criteria for assessing the trace element removal capacity of bio-filtration
systems. Spokane County.
Mollick, R.B. et al., 2000. Design, Construction and Performance of New-Generation Open-
Graded Friction Courses. National Center for Asphalt Technology. Auburn University, Alabama.
NCHRP. 1994. Long-term performance of geosynthetics in drainage applications. NCHRP
Report 367.
Prince George’s County. 2001. The Bioretention Manual. Prince George’s County Programs
and Planning Division.
April 2019
Puget Sound Action Team. 2005. Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for
Puget Sound.
Schueler, Thomas, Peter Kumble, and Heraty, Anacostia Restoration Team, Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. 1992. “A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management
Practices: Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone.” Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Thullen, J.S., J.J. Sartoris, and W.E. Walton. 2002. “Effects of Vegetation Management in
Constructed Wetlands Treatment Cells on Water Quality and Mosquito Production.” Ecological
Engineering 18 (2002) 441-457.
U.S. COE. 1994. Selection and design of oil and water separators. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers.
August 26, 1994.
U.S. EPA. 1993. “Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution
In Coastal Waters.” EPA-840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of
Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA Technology Fact Sheets. www.epa.gov/water-research/water-research-fact-sheets
U.S.A.F. Circa 1991. Gravity oil and water separator design criteria. U.S. Air Force.
UW. 1994. Field test of compost amendment to reduce nutrient runoff. University of
Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA.
WEF and ASCE. 1998. Urban runoff quality management. Water Environment Federation and
American Society of Civil Engineers.
WPCF. 1985. Clarifier Design. Water Pollution Control Federation: Manual of Practice. No. FD-8.
Young, G.K., S. Stein, P. Cole, T. Kammer, F. Graziano, and F. Bank. 1996. “Evaluation and
Management of Highway Runoff Water Quality.” FHWA-PD-96-032, Federal Highway
Administration.

April 2019
CHAPTER 6
Temporary Erosion and

Sediment Control
Chapter 6 Contents
Chapter 6 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 6-1
Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 6-i

April 2019
Chapter 6 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
6-1 Introduction
Comprehensive construction stormwater planning prevents sediment and other pollutants
associated with construction activity from impacting soil, air, and water quality. Erosion is
a natural process that can be accelerated by human activity. Construction activities such as
removing vegetation, disturbing large areas of soil, and redirecting drainage can increase the
natural background rates of erosion. Erosion is the removal of soil from its original location
by forces such as wind, water, or gravity.
Chapter 6 of the Highway Runoff Manual (HRM) has been removed and become its own
manual, the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Manual (TESCM). The TESCM provides
the strategy for:
 Meeting the stormwater pollution prevention planning (SWPPP),
 Sampling discharges, and
 Reporting requirements in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP)
WSDOT’s HRM, in combination with the TESCM, are deemed equivalent to Ecology’s
Stormwater Management Manuals. The TESCM can be found online at:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M3109.htm
Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 6-1

April 2019
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Glossary of Terms
A
alignment Horizontal and vertical geometric elements that define the location of a roadway.
anadromous fish species Fish that are born and reared in freshwater, migrate to the ocean to
grow to maturity, and return to freshwater to reproduce (such as salmon and steelhead).
anoxic Devoid of oxygen.
antecedent moisture conditions The degree of wetness of a watershed or the soil at the
beginning of a storm.
antiseepage collar A device constructed around a pipe or other conduit and placed through a
dam, levee, or dike for the purpose of reducing seepage losses and piping failures.
aquifer A geological stratum containing groundwater that can be withdrawn and used for
human purposes.
arid Excessively dry; having insufficient rainfall to support agriculture without irrigation.
arterial A road or street intended to move high volumes of traffic over long distances at high
speed, with partial control of access, having some intersections at grade. A major arterial
connects an interstate highway to cities and counties. A minor arterial connects major
arterials to collectors. A collector connects an arterial to a neighborhood (a collector is not
an arterial). A local access road connects individual residences to a collector.
as-built drawings Engineering plans that have been revised to reflect all changes to the plans
that occurred during construction.
average daily traffic (ADT) The volume of traffic passing a point on a highway in both
directions during an average day of the year (or design year). ADT counts must be estimated
using Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, or using a
traffic study prepared by a professional engineer or transportation specialist with expertise
in traffic volume estimation. ADT counts can be used to forecast future volumes for the
design life of a particular project. For project sites with seasonal or varied use, the highest
period of expected traffic impacts is evaluated.
B
backwater Water upstream from an obstruction that is deeper than it would normally be
without the obstruction.
baffle A device to check, deflect, or regulate flow.
Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page G-1

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
base flood A flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also
called the 100-year flood).
base flow The portion of stream flow that is not attributable to storm runoff and is supported
by groundwater seepage into a channel.
basic (water quality) treatment (versus enhanced water quality treatment) The Washington
State Department of Ecology’s performance goal is to achieve 80% removal of total
suspended solids for influent concentrations that are greater than 100mg/l, but less than
200mg/l. For influent concentrations greater than 200mg/l, a higher treatment goal may be
appropriate. For influent concentrations less than 100mg/l, the facilities are intended to
achieve an effluent goal of 20mg/l total suspended solids.
basin The area of land drained by a river and its tributaries that drains water, organic matter,
dissolved nutrients, and sediments into a lake or stream (see watershed). Basins typically
range in size from 1 to 50 square miles.
basin plan A plan that assesses, evaluates, and proposes solutions to existing and potential
future impacts on the physical, chemical, and biological properties and beneficial uses of
waters of the state within a drainage basin. A plan should include but not be limited to
recommendations for the following elements:
 Stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment
 Capital improvement projects
 Land use management through identification and protection of critical areas,
comprehensive land use and transportation plans, zoning regulations, site
development standards, and conservation areas
 Source control activities, including public education and involvement, and
business programs
 Other targeted stormwater programs and activities, such as maintenance,
inspections, and enforcement
 Monitoring
 An implementation schedule and funding strategy
A basin plan that is adopted and implemented must have the following
characteristics:
 Adoption by legislative or regulatory action of jurisdictions with responsibilities
under the plan
 Recommended ordinances, regulations, programs, and procedures that are in
effect or scheduled to go into effect
 An implementation schedule and funding strategy in progress
bench A relatively level step excavated into earth material on which fill is to be placed.
Page G-2 Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
beneficial uses Those water uses identified in state water quality standards that must be
achieved and maintained as required under the federal Clean Water Act. “Beneficial use”
and “designated use” are often used interchangeably.
berm A constructed barrier of compacted earth, rock, or gravel. In a stormwater facility, a

berm may serve as a vertical divider, typically built up from the bottom.
best available science The best available scientific knowledge and practices.
best management practices (BMPs) The structural devices, maintenance procedures,

managerial practices, prohibitions of practices, and schedules of activities that are used
singly or in combination to prevent or reduce the detrimental impacts of stormwater, such
as pollution of water, degradation of channels, damage to structures, and flooding.
biodegradable Capable of being readily broken down by biological means, especially by

microbial action. Microbial action includes the combined effects of bacteria, fungi,
flagellates, amoebae, ciliates, and nematodes. Degradation can be rapid or may take
many years, depending on such factors as available oxygen and moisture.
bioengineering The combination of biological, mechanical, and ecological concepts (and

methods) to control erosion and stabilize soil through the use of vegetation alone or in
combination with construction materials.
biofilter A designed treatment facility using a combined soil and vegetation system for
filtration, infiltration, adsorption, and biological uptake of pollutants in stormwater when
runoff flows over and through it. Vegetation growing in these facilities acts as both a physical
filter that causes gravity settling of particulates by regulating velocity of flow, and as a
biological sink when direct uptake of dissolved pollutants occurs. The former mechanism is
probably the most important in western Washington, where the period of major runoff
coincides with the period of lowest biological activity.
biofiltration The process of reducing pollutant concentrations in water by filtering the

polluted water through biological materials, such as vegetation.
bioinfiltration The process of reducing pollutant concentrations in water by infiltrating the

polluted water through grassy vegetation and soils into the ground.
biological assessment A document prepared under the direction of a federal agency to

determine whether a proposed action involving major construction activities is likely
to (1) adversely affect species protected under the Endangered Species Act or their
designated critical habitats, (2) jeopardize the continued existence of species that are
proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or (3) adversely modify proposed
critical habitat.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
biological evaluation A document that contains exactly the same information as a biological
assessment, evaluating the impacts of a proposed action on listed and proposed species and
habitat. In the case of projects without federal involvement, the biological evaluation
determines whether the proposed action would violate Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act. The biological evaluation can evolve into a biological assessment if formal or informal
consultation is required with the federal agencies.
bioretention The removal of stormwater runoff pollutants using the chemical, biological, and
physical properties afforded by a natural terrestrial community of plants, microbes, and soil.
The typical bioretention system is set in a depressional area and consists of plantings, mulch,
and an amended planting soil layer underlain with more freely draining granular material.
bituminous surface treatment (BST) A thin, protective wearing surface that is applied to
a pavement or base course (also known as a seal coat or chip seal).
bollard A post (which may or may not be removable) used to prevent vehicular access.
borings Cylindrical samples of a soil profile used for analysis of soils or determination of
infiltration capacity.
borrow area A source of earth fill material used in the construction of embankments or other
earth fill structures.
buffer The zone contiguous with a sensitive area that is required for the continued
maintenance, function, and structural stability of the sensitive area. The critical functions of
a riparian buffer (those associated with an aquatic system) include shading; input of organic
debris and coarse sediments; uptake of nutrients; stabilization of banks; interception of fine
sediments; overflow during high water events; protection from disturbance by humans and
domestic animals; maintenance of wildlife habitat; and room for variation of aquatic system
boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects. The critical functions of terrestrial
buffers include protection of slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows from
stormwater runoff and precipitation, and erosion control.
bypass A channel or conveyance constructed to divert water around a stormwater facility or

series of stormwater facilities.
C
capital costs Nonrecurring costs required to construct infrastructure, including costs of right
of way, facilities, drainage systems, utilities, and associated administrative and design costs,
as well as financing charges during construction.
capital improvement project or program (CIP) A project prioritized and scheduled as a part of
an overall construction program or the actual construction program.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
catch basin A chamber or well, usually built at the curb line of a street, for the admission of
surface water to a sewer or subdrain, having at its base a sediment sump designed to retain
grit and detritus below the point of overflow.
catch basin insert (CBI) A device installed under a storm drain grate to provide runoff
treatment through filtration, settling, or adsorption (also called inlet protection).
catchment Surface area associated with pavement drainage design.
cation exchange capacity (CEC) The amount of exchangeable cations that a soil can adsorb at
pH 7.0, typically expressed in units of milliequivalents per 100 grams of dry soil.
channel A feature that conveys surface water and is open to the air.
channel erosion The widening, deepening, and headward cutting of small channels and
waterways resulting from erosion caused by moderate-to-large floods.
channel stabilization Erosion prevention and stabilization of velocity distribution in a channel

using vegetation, jetties, drops, revetments, or other measures.
check dam A small dam constructed in a ditch, gully, grass swale, or other small watercourse
to decrease the stream flow velocity, enhance infiltration, minimize channel scour, and
promote deposition of sediment; or a log or gabion structure placed perpendicular to a
stream to enhance aquatic habitat.
clearing The removal and disposal of all unwanted natural material from the ground surface
such as trees, brush, and downed timber by manual, mechanical, or chemical methods.
closed depression A low-lying area that has either no surface water outlet or such a limited
surface water outlet that, during storm events, the area acts as a retention basin.
coir Coconut fiber used for erosion control blankets and wattles.
compaction The densification, settlement, or packing of soil in such a way that its
permeability is reduced. Compaction effectively shifts the performance of a hydrologic group
to a lower-permeability hydrologic group. Compaction may also refer to the densification of
a fill by mechanical means.
compost Organic residue, or a mixture of organic residues and soil, that has undergone
biological decomposition until it has become relatively stable humus. The Washington State
Department of Ecology’s Interim Guidelines for Compost Quality (1994) defines compost as
“the product of composting; it has undergone an initial, rapid stage of decomposition and is
in the process of humification (curing).” Compost to be used should meet specifications
shown in Standard Specification 9-14.4(8).
concentrated flow Water flowing in a channel as opposed to a thin sheet.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
constructed stormwater treatment wetland A wetland intentionally created on a site that is

not a wetland, for the primary purpose of wastewater or stormwater treatment.
Constructed wetlands are normally considered part of the stormwater collection and
treatment system.
Construction Contract Information System (CCIS) A WSDOT database managed by the HQ

Construction Office to track contract costs.
construction staging area A site used temporarily during construction for materials or
equipment storage, assembly, or other temporary construction activities.
context sensitive design (CSD) A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves

all stakeholders in developing a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and
preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources while maintaining safety
and mobility (also known as “context sensitive solutions” and “thinking beyond the
pavement”).
converted pervious surface Land cover changed from native vegetation to lawn, landscape, or
pasture areas. (See also pollution-generating impervious surface.)
conveyance A mechanism for transporting water from one point to another, including pipes,
ditches, and channels.
conveyance system The drainage facilities, both natural and constructed, that collect,
contain, and provide for the flow of surface water and stormwater from the highest points
on the land down to a receiving water. The natural elements of the conveyance system
include swales and small drainage courses, streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Constructed
elements of the conveyance system include gutters, ditches, pipes, channels, and most
retention/ detention facilities.
critical areas At a minimum: areas that include wetlands; areas with a critical recharging
effect on aquifers used for potable water; fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
frequently flooded areas; geologically hazardous areas, including unstable slopes; and
associated areas and ecosystems.
culvert A pipe or concrete box structure that drains open channels, swales, or ditches under a
roadway or embankment. Typically, a culvert is not connected to a catch basin or manhole
along its length. Various types of culverts are listed in the Hydraulics Manual.
cut-and-fill The process of moving earth by excavating part of an area and using the
excavated material for adjacent embankments or fill areas.
cut slope A slope formed by excavating overlying material to connect the original
ground surface with a lower ground surface created by the excavation. A cut slope
is distinguished from a bermed slope, which is constructed by importing soil to create the
slope.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
D
dangerous waste Any discarded, useless, unwanted, or abandoned substances, including (but
not limited to) certain pesticides, or any residues or containers of such substances that are
disposed of in such quantity or concentration as to pose a substantial current or potential
hazard to human health, wildlife, or the environment (RCW 70.105.010). These wastes may
have short-lived, toxic properties that may cause death, injury, or illness; may have
mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic properties; may be corrosive, explosive, or
flammable; or may generate pressure through decomposition or other means. (See also
hazardous waste.)
dead storage The volume of water in a pond, reservoir, or infiltration facility that is stored
below the elevation of the lowest outlet or operating level of the structure; the volume
available in a depression in the ground below any conveyance system, surface drainage
pathway, or outlet invert elevation that could allow the discharge of surface and stormwater
runoff.
demonstrative approach (versus presumptive approach) See Sections 1-2.2 and 5-3.6.3.
depression storage The amount of precipitation trapped in depressions on the surface of the
ground.
design flow rate The maximum flow rate to which certain runoff treatment BMPs are
designed for required pollutant removal. Biofiltration swales, vegetated filter strips, and
oil/water separators are some of the runoff treatment BMPs that are sized based on a
design flow rate.
design storm A rainfall event of specified size and return frequency that is used to calculate
the runoff volume and peak discharge rate to a stormwater facility. A prescribed hyetograph
and total precipitation amount (for a specific duration recurrence frequency) are used to
estimate runoff for a hypothetical storm for the purposes of analyzing existing drainage,
designing new drainage facilities, or assessing other impacts of a proposed project on the
flow of surface water. (A hyetograph is a graph of percentages of total precipitation for a
series of time steps representing the total time during which the precipitation occurs.)
design storm frequency The anticipated period in years that will elapse before a storm of a
given intensity or total volume will recur, based on the average probability of storms in the
design region. For instance, a 10-year storm can be expected to occur on the average once
every 10 years. Facilities designed to handle flows that occur under such storm conditions
would be expected to be surcharged by any storms of greater amount or intensity.
design volume For western Washington, the water quality design volume is the 91st
percentile, 24-hour runoff volume indicated by MGSFlood or an approved continuous runoff
model (see Table 3-3). In eastern Washington, the water quality design volume is the volume
of runoff predicted from a 24-hour storm with a 6-month return frequency (see Table 3-4).

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
detention The temporary storage of stormwater runoff in a stormwater facility, which is used
to control the peak discharge rates and provide gravity settling of pollutants; the release of
stormwater runoff from the site at a slower rate than it is collected by the stormwater
facility system, with the difference held in temporary storage.
detention facility An aboveground or below-grade ground facility, such as a pond or tank, that
temporarily stores stormwater runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is
collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or no infiltration of stored
stormwater.
dewatering Removing water by pumping, drainage, or evaporation.
discharge Runoff leaving a new development or redevelopment via overland flow, built
conveyance systems, or infiltration facilities; a hydraulic rate of flow, specifically fluid flow;
or a volume of fluid passing a point per unit of time, commonly expressed in cubic feet per
second, cubic meters per second, gallons per minute, gallons per day, or millions of gallons
per day.
discharge point The location where a discharge leaves the permittee’s MS4 to another
permittee’s MS4 or a private or public stormwater conveyance. “Discharge point” also
includes the location where a discharge leaves the permittee’s MS4 and discharges to
ground, except where such discharge occurs via an outfall.
dispersion Release of surface water and stormwater runoff in such a way that the flow
spreads over a wide area and is located so as not to allow flow to concentrate anywhere
upstream of a drainage channel with erodible underlying granular soils.
displacement A property encroachment that requires full acquisition of a parcel in order to

build and operate public transportation facilities.
ditch A long, narrow excavation dug in the earth for drainage, having a top width less than
10 feet at design flow.
drainage easement A legal encumbrance placed against a property's title to reserve specified
privileges for the users and beneficiaries of the drainage facilities contained within the
boundaries of the easement.
drawdown The gradual reduction in water level in a pond due to the combined effects of
infiltration and evaporation; the lowering of the water surface (in open-channel flow), the
water table, or the piezometric surface (in groundwater flow) resulting from a withdrawal of
water.
drop structure A structure for dropping water to a lower level and dissipating its surplus
energy (a fall). A drop may be vertical or inclined.
dry pond A facility that provides stormwater quantity control by containing excess runoff in a
detention basin, then releasing the runoff at allowable levels.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
dry vault or tank A facility that provides stormwater quantity control by detaining runoff in
underground storage units and then releasing reduced flows at established standards.
drywell A well completed above the water table so that its bottom and sides are typically dry
except when receiving fluids. Drywells are designed to disperse water below the land surface
and are commonly used for stormwater management in eastern Washington. (See also
underground injection control [UIC] well.)
duff The naturally-occurring layer of dead and decaying plant material that develops on the
ground surface under established plant communities.
E
easement The legal right to use a parcel of land for a particular purpose. It does not include
fee ownership, but may restrict the owner’s use of the land.
eastern Washington high-use road Eastern Washington roadways with ADT >30,000.
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology.
ecology embankment See media filter drain.
effective impervious surface For determining whether a particular TDA has exceeded
Minimum Requirement 6 (Flow Control), the net-new impervious surfaces plus any
applicable replaced impervious surfaces minus those new and applicable replaced
impervious surfaces that are flowing into an existing dispersion area (noneffective new
impervious surfaces and noneffective replaced impervious surfaces).
effective impervious surface = net new impervious surface + applicable replaced

impervious surface – noneffective new impervious surface – noneffective replaced
impervious surface
effective pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) For determining whether a

particular TDA has exceeded Minimum Requirement 5 (Runoff Treatment), the new PGIS
plus applicable replaced PGIS minus those new PGIS areas and applicable replaced PGIS
areas that are flowing into an existing dispersion area (noneffective new PGIS and
noneffective replaced PGIS).
effective PGIS = new PGIS + applicable replaced PGIS – noneffective new PGIS –
noneffective replaced PGIS
embankment A structure of earth, gravel, or similar material raised to form a pond bank or
foundation for a road.
emergency overflow spillway A vegetated earth or rock-lined channel used to safely convey
flood discharges in excess of the capacity of the principal spillway.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
emergent plants Aquatic plants that are rooted in the sediment but whose leaves are at or
above the water surface. These wetland plants often have high habitat value for wildlife and
waterfowl and can aid in pollutant uptake.
emerging BMP technologies BMP technologies that have not been evaluated using approved
protocols, but for which preliminary data indicate they may provide a desirable level of
stormwater pollutant removal. In some instances, an emerging technology may have already
received a pilot use or conditional use designation from the Washington State Department of
Ecology, but does not have a general use designation.
endangered species Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range (other than pest insects).
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 An act “To provide for the conservation of endangered
and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and for other purposes.”
energy dissipater A means by which the total energy of flowing water is reduced, such as rock
splash pads, drop manholes, concrete stilling basins or baffles, and check dams. In
stormwater design, an energy dissipater is usually a mechanism that reduces velocity prior
to or at discharge from an outfall in order to prevent erosion.
engineering and economic feasibility (EEF) An assessment of whether a project will

experience practical limitations in fully meeting certain minimum requirements, particularly
runoff treatment and flow control, within the project right of way. Limitations may be
infrastructural, geographical, geotechnical, hydraulic, environmental, or benefit/cost-
related. (Chapter 2 provides further discussion of EEF, and Appendix 2A includes the
EEF Checklist, which is designed to identify the critical limiting factors that may inhibit or
preclude construction of stormwater management facilities in a project right of way).
enhanced runoff treatment, enhanced water quality treatment (versus basic water quality
treatment) The use of runoff treatment BMPs designed to capture dissolved metals at a
higher rate than basic treatment BMPs.
ephemeral stream A stream or portion of a stream that flows in direct response to

precipitation, receiving little or no water from groundwater or snowmelt (also known as a
seasonal stream).
equivalent area An impervious surface area equal in size, located in the same TDA, and having
an ADT that is greater than or equal to the original impervious surface area . The equivalent
area concept can also apply to pervious areas but would also have to meet the same above
requirements for impervious areas. The equivalent area concept generally applies to
engineered dispersion areas and may apply to natural dispersion areas, as described in the
following: The existing TDA currently collects runoff in a ditch or pipe and discharges to a
surface water. By changing this condition to natural dispersion (BMP FC.01), a surface
discharge is eliminated, resulting in a flow control improvement. Equivalent area trades for
natural dispersion are allowed for this specific case.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
erosion The detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or
gravity.erosion control blanket A blanket made of natural plant material or synthetic fibers
that is rolled out and fastened to the soil surface to protect soil from raindrop and sheet
erosion.
erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) Any temporary or permanent measures taken to
reduce erosion, trap sediment, and ensure sediment-laden water does not leave the site.
estuarine wetland Generally, an eelgrass bed, salt marsh, or rocky sand flat or mudflat
intertidal area where freshwater and saltwater mix (specifically, a tidal wetland with salinity
greater than 0.5 parts per thousand, usually partially enclosed by land, but with partially
obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean).
eutrophication The addition of nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, to a body of

water, resulting in high organic production rates that may overcome natural self-purification
processes. Frequently resulting from pollutant sources on adjacent lands, eutrophication
produces undesirable effects, including algal blooms, seasonally low oxygen levels, and
reduced survival opportunities for fish and invertebrates.
evapotranspiration The collective term for the processes of evaporation and plant
transpiration by which water is returned to the atmosphere.
exfiltration The downward movement of runoff through the bottom of an infiltration facility
into the soil layer, or the downward movement of water through soil.
existing land cover/existing site conditions The conditions (ground cover, slope, drainage
patterns) of a site as they existed on the first day the project entered the design phase.
existing roadway prism The limit of embankment or excavation work required to construct
the roadway. This limit is further defined as the catch point of a cut or fill with the existing
ground.
F
feasibility See engineering and economic feasibility.
fill slope An embankment made of earthen material placed by artificial means that is
especially vulnerable to erosion.
filter berm A berm of compost, mulch, or gravel to detain and filter sediment from sheet flow.
filter fabric A woven or nonwoven water-permeable material, typically made of synthetic

products such as polypropylene, used in stormwater management and erosion and sediment
control applications to trap sediment or to prevent fine soil particles from clogging the
aggregates.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
filter strip A grassy area with gentle slopes that treats stormwater runoff from adjacent paved
areas before it can concentrate into a discrete channel.
fish-bearing stream According to WAC 222-16-030: Type S, F, and Np waters are fish habitat
streams. Until fish habitat water type maps are available, an interim water-typing system
applies (see WAC 222-16-031). Type 1, 2, 3, and 4 waters are fish habitat streams.
flood An overflow or inundation that comes from a river or any other source, including but
not limited to streams, tides, wave action, storm drains, or excess rainfall; any relatively high
stream flow overtopping the natural or artificial banks in any reach of a stream.
flood control project A structural system installed to protect land and improvements from
floods by the construction of dikes, river embankments, channels, or dams.
flood frequency The frequency at which the flood of interest may be expected to occur.
flood peak The highest value of the stage or discharge attained by a flood; thus, peak stage or
peak discharge.
floodplain The total area subject to inundation by a flood, including the flood fringe and
floodway.
flood stage The stage at which overflow of the natural banks of a stream begins.
floodway The channel of the river or stream and those portions of the adjoining floodplains
that are reasonably required to carry and discharge the base flood flow. The "reasonably
required" portion of the adjoining floodplains is defined by flood hazard regulations.
flow control (formerly called water quantity treatment or detention)
flow control facility A drainage facility (BMP) designed to mitigate the impacts of increased
surface water and stormwater runoff flow rates generated by development. Flow control
facilities are designed to either hold water for a considerable length of time and then release
it by evaporation, plant transpiration, or infiltration into the ground, or to hold runoff for a
short period of time and then release it to the conveyance system at a controlled rate.
flow duration The aggregate time that peak flows are equal to or above a particular flow rate
of interest. For example, the amount of time that peak flows are equal to or above 50% of
the 2-year peak flow rate for a period of record.
flow frequency The inverse of the probability that the flow will be equaled or exceeded in any
given year (the exceedance probability). For example, if the exceedance probability is 0.01 or
1 in 100, that flow is referred to as the 100-year flow.
flow path The route that stormwater runoff follows between two points of interest.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
flow rate The amount of a fluid passing a certain point in a given amount of time. In
stormwater applications it is usually expressed in cubic feet per second or gallons per
minute.
flow splitter A device with multiple outlets, each sized to pass a specific flow rate at a given
head.
flow spreader A device with a wide enough outlet to efficiently distribute concentrated flows
evenly over a large area, having common components such as trenches, perforated pipes,
and berms.
forebay An easily maintained extra storage area provided near an inlet of a stormwater
facility to trap incoming sediments before they accumulate in a pond or wetland.
freeboard The vertical distance between the design water surface elevation and the elevation
of the barrier that contains the water.
functions, wetland The ecological (physical, chemical, and biological) processes or attributes
of wetlands without regard for their importance to society. Wetland functions include food
chain support; provision of ecosystem diversity and fish and wildlife habitat; flood flow
alteration; groundwater recharge and discharge; water quality improvement; and soil
stabilization.
G
gabion A rectangular or cylindrical wire mesh cage (a chicken wire basket) filled with rock
and used as a protection or revetment against erosion. Soft gabions, often used in streams
and ponds to stabilize banks or change flow patterns, are made of geotextiles filled with soil,
with cuttings placed between.
gage or gauge A device for registering precipitation, water level, discharge, velocity, pressure,
or temperature. Also, a measure of the thickness of metal (for example, diameter of wire or
wall thickness of steel pipe).
geologically hazardous areas Areas that, because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding,
earthquakes, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial,
residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns.
geologist A person who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or
university (or who has equivalent educational training) and has at least five years of
experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience in practice and at least two
years of post-graduate study, research, or teaching. The practical experience must include at
least three years working in applied geology and landslide evaluation, in close association
with qualified practicing geologists or geotechnical professional/civil engineers.
geotextile Durable synthetic fabrics used to reinforce soils and construct temporary sediment
control BMPs for detaining runoff and trapping sediment.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
GIS Workbench An ArcView geographic information system tool maintained by the WSDOT
HQ Geographic Services Office and the HQ Office of Information Technology to provide staff
with access to comprehensive, current, and detailed environmental and natural resource
management data.
gore area The tapering paved area between two lanes, on which travel is not allowed.
grade The slope of a road, channel, or natural ground; the finished surface of a canal bed,
roadbed, top of embankment, or bottom of excavation; or any surface prepared for the
support of construction such as paving or the laying of a conduit.
gradient terrace A terrace cut horizontally into a slope, designed according to criteria that
consider slope, length, and height.
groundwater Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or a surface
water body.
groundwater recharge Inflow to a groundwater reservoir.
groundwater table The free surface of the groundwater, which is subject to atmospheric
pressure under the ground and is seldom static, generally rising and falling with the season,
the rate of withdrawal, the rate of restoration, and other conditions.
grubbing The removal and disposal of all unwanted vegetative matter from underground,
such as sod, stumps, roots, buried logs, or other debris.
gully A channel caused by the concentrated flow of surface and stormwater runoff over
unprotected erodible land.
H
habitat The specific area or environment in which a particular type of plant or animal lives. An
organism's habitat must provide all the basic requirements for life and should be protected
from harmful biological, chemical, and physical alterations.
hardpan A cemented or compacted and often clay-like layer of soil that is impenetrable by
roots (also known as glacial till).
hazardous substance Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance,
product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the characteristics
or criteria of hazardous waste (RCW 70.105.010). (See also dangerous waste.)
hazardous waste All dangerous and extremely hazardous waste, including substances having
radioactive or hazardous components (RCW 70.105.010). (See also dangerous waste.)

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
head (hydraulic) The height of water above any plane of reference; the energy, either kinetic
or potential, possessed by each unit weight of a liquid, expressed as the vertical height
through which a unit weight would have to fall to release the average energy possessed;
used in various compound terms such as pressure head, velocity head, and head loss.
heavy metals Metals of high specific gravity, present in municipal and industrial wastes, that
pose long-term environmental hazards. Such metals include cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc.
high-use roadway and parking area Roadways and parking areas that the Washington State
Department of Ecology presumes will generate concentrations of oil that need to be
managed. With respect to oil control, absorptive BMPs (CAVFS, bioinfiltration pond) should
be used on these high-use roads and parking areas. Examples of high-use roadways and
parking areas include the following:
 Rest areas with an expected trip end count greater than or equal to 300 vehicles
per day
 Eastern Washington roads with ADT > 30,000
high-use site, high-use intersection A site that the Washington State Department of Ecology
presumes will generate high concentrations of oil due to high traffic turnover or the frequent
transfer of oil. Examples of high-use sites include the following:
 An intersection where either ≥15,000 vehicles (ADT) must stop to cross a

roadway with ≥25,000 vehicles (ADT) or vice versa, excluding projects proposing
primarily pedestrian or bicycle improvements
 Maintenance facilities that park, store, or maintain 25 or more vehicles (trucks or
heavy equipment) that exceed 10 tons gross weight each
highway A main public road connecting towns and cities.
Highway Activity Tracking System (HATS) WSDOT web application used to track the location
of highway features including stormwater BMPs and track maintenance activities done to
those features.
historic land cover The native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence
of Euro-American settlement. The predeveloped condition shall be assumed to be forested
land cover unless reasonable historic information is provided that indicates the site was
prairie prior to settlement.
hog fuel Wood residues processed through a chipper or mill to produce coarse chips.
Residues may include bark, sawdust, planer shavings, wood chunks, and small amounts of
mineral material.
hydraulic conductivity The quality of saturated soil that enables water or air to move through
it (also known as permeability coefficient).

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
hydraulic gradient Slope of the potential head relative to a fixed datum.
hydraulic residence time The time required for a slug of water to move through a system. In
the most simplistic situation, once inflows to a water body cease, the hydraulic residence
time is equal to the volume of the water body divided by the discharge rate (assuming no
short-circuiting of the system).
hydrograph A graph of runoff rate, inflow rate, or discharge rate past a specific point over
time.
Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) A continuous simulation hydrologic model

that transforms an uninterrupted rainfall record into a concurrent series of runoff or flow
data by means of a set of mathematical algorithms that represent the rainfall-runoff process
at some conceptual level.
hydrologic cycle The circuit of water movement from the atmosphere to the earth and
returning to the atmosphere through various stages or processes such as precipitation,
interception, runoff, infiltration, percolation, storage, evaporation, and transpiration.
hydrologic soil groups A soil characteristic classification system defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service in which a soil may be categorized into one of four soil groups (A, B, C,
or D) based upon infiltration rate and other properties (based on Water Quality Prevention,
Identification, and Management of Diffuse Pollution by Vladimir Novotny and Harvey Olem;
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1994, page 109). Soil groups include:
 Type A – Low runoff potential. Soils having high infiltration rates, even when
thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of deep, well-drained to excessively-
drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
 Type B – Moderately low runoff potential. Soils having moderate infiltration
rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of moderately fine to
moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water
transmission.
 Type C – Moderately high runoff potential. Soils having slow infiltration rates
when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes
downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine to fine textures.
These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.
 Type D – High runoff potential. Soils having very slow infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling
potential; soils with a permanent high water table; soils with a hardpan, till, or
clay layer at or near the surface; soils with a compacted subgrade at or near the
surface; and shallow soils or nearly impervious material. These soils have a very
slow rate of water transmission.
hydrology The science of the behavior of water in the atmosphere, on the surface of the
earth, and below ground.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
hydroperiod A seasonal occurrence of flooding or soil saturation; it encompasses the depth,

frequency, duration, and seasonal pattern of inundation.
hyetograph A graph of percentages of total precipitation for a series of time steps

representing the total time during which the precipitation occurs.
I
illicit discharge All nonstormwater discharges to stormwater drainage systems that cause or
contribute to a violation of state water quality, sediment quality, or groundwater quality
standards, including but not limited to sanitary sewer connections, industrial process water,
interior floor drains, car washing, and gray-water systems.
impaired waters Water bodies not fully supporting their beneficial uses, as defined under the
federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). (See the Washington State Department of Ecology
303(d) list at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-
improvement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d.)
impervious surface A hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into
the soil mantle as occurs under natural conditions (prior to development) and from which
water runs off at an increased rate of flow or in increased volumes. Common impervious
surfaces include but are not limited to rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots,
storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials (such as
compact dirt), and oiled or macadam surfaces. Open, uncovered retention/detention
facilities are not considered impervious surfaces for the purpose of determining whether the
thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered
retention/detention facilities are considered impervious surfaces for the purpose of runoff
modeling. For Minimum Requirement determination, permeable pavement is considered an
impervious surface. A gravel area would be considered an impervious area and PGIS (when
determining minimum requirements or stormwater modeling) when it is extending the
usable shoulder between the edge of paved shoulder and the slope break point (see HRM
FAQs for drawings of Case B, Case C, and Case D). Gravel areas beyond the slope break point
are not considered impervious or PGIS (see HRM FAQs for drawings of Case A, Case C, Case
D, and Case E). The exception to this is when the gravel area is extending the usable
shoulder as shown in Case B.
Implementing Agreement The Implementing Agreement between the Washington State

Department of Ecology and the Washington State Department of Transportation Regarding
Compliance with the State of Washington Surface Water Quality Standards (also abbreviated
as WQIA: Water Quality Implementing Agreement).
impoundment A natural or constructed containment for surface water.
improvement Streets (with or without curbs or gutters), sidewalks, crosswalks, parking lots,
water mains, sanitary and storm sewers, drainage facilities, street trees, and other
appropriate items.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
infiltration The downward movement of water from the surface to the subsoil.
infiltration facility or system A drainage facility designed to use the hydrologic process of
surface and stormwater runoff soaking into the ground (commonly called percolation), to
dispose of surface and stormwater runoff.
infiltration pond A facility that provides stormwater quantity control by containing excess
runoff in a detention facility, then percolating that runoff into the surrounding soil.
infiltration rate The rate, usually expressed in inches per hour, at which water moves
downward (percolates) through the soil profile. Short-term infiltration rates may be inferred
from soil analysis or texture or derived from field measurements. Long-term infiltration rates
are affected by variability in soils and subsurface conditions at the site, the effectiveness of
pretreatment or influent control, and the degree of long-term maintenance of the
infiltration facility.
inlet A form of connection between the surface of the ground and a drain or sewer for the
admission of surface and stormwater runoff.
interception (hydraulic) The process by which precipitation is caught and held by foliage,
twigs, and branches of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. Often used to mean interception
loss or the amount of water evaporated from the precipitation intercepted.
interceptor dike A soil berm used to intercept and redirect stormwater runoff to a treatment
facility.
interflow That portion of rainfall that infiltrates into the soil and moves laterally through the
upper soil horizons until intercepted by a stream channel or until it returns to the surface;
for example, in a roadside ditch, wetland, spring, or seep. Interflow is a function of soil
system depth, permeability, and water-holding capacity.
intermittent stream or channel A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct
response to precipitation; receives little or no water from springs and no continual supply
from melting snow or other sources; and is dry for a large part of the year, ordinarily more
than three months.
invert The lowest point on the inside of a sewer or other conduit.
invert elevation The vertical elevation of a pipe or orifice in a pond that defines the water
level.
isopluvial map A map with lines representing constant depth of total precipitation for a given
return frequency.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
L
lake An area permanently inundated by water in excess of two meters deep and greater than
20 acres in size as measured at the ordinary high water marks.
land-disturbing activity Any activity that results in a movement of earth or a change in the
existing soil cover (both vegetative and nonvegetative) or the existing soil topography,
including but not limited to clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is
associated with stabilization of structures and road construction is also considered a land-
disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices are not considered land-disturbing
activities.
landslide hazard areas Those areas subject to a severe risk of landslide.
leachate Liquid that has percolated through soil and contains substances in solution or
suspension.
level pool routing The basic technique of storage routing used for sizing and analyzing
detention storage and determining water levels for ponding water bodies. The level pool
routing technique is based on the continuity equation: inflow – outflow = change in storage.
level spreader A temporary erosion and sedimentation control device used to distribute
stormwater runoff uniformly over the ground surface as sheet flow (not through channels),
in order to enhance infiltration and prevent concentrated, erosive flows.
live storage The volume of the flow control BMP that is released over a long period of time.
local government, local jurisdiction Any county, city, town, or special-purpose district having
its own incorporated government for local affairs.
low-impact development (LID) An evolving approach to land development and stormwater

management that uses a site's natural features and specially designed BMPs to manage
stormwater; it involves assessing and understanding the site, protecting native vegetation
and soils, and minimizing and managing stormwater at the source. Low-impact development
practices are appropriate for a variety of development types.
low-permeability liner A layer of compacted till or clay or a geomembrane.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
M
Manning’s equation An equation used to predict the velocity of water flow in a pipeline or an
open channel:
V = (1.486(R^2/3)(S^1/2))/n
where:
V = the mean velocity of flow in feet per second
R = the hydraulic radius in feet
S = the slope of the energy gradient or, for assumed uniform flow, the slope of
the channel in feet per foot
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient or retardance factor of the channel lining
media filter A filter that includes material for removing pollutants (such as compost, gypsum,
perlite, zeolite, or activated carbon).
media filter drain (previously known as the ecology embankment) A stormwater treatment
facility typically constructed in the pervious shoulder area of a highway, consisting of a no-
vegetation zone, a grass strip, a filter media mix, and a drain component that keeps the
facility free draining.
mitigated area The drainage area from which stormwater runoff is to be detained or treated.
mitigation Measures to reduce adverse impacts on the environment, in the following order of
preference:
1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part of an action.
2. Minimize the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps
to avoid or reduce impacts.
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.
mitigation wetland A wetland that is created, enhanced, restored, or preserved to offset the
unavoidable environmental impacts of development actions on natural wetlands.
monitoring The collection of data by various methods for the purposes of understanding
natural systems and features, evaluating the impacts of development proposals on such
systems, and assessing the performance of mitigation measures imposed as conditions of
development.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
N
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The part of the federal Clean
Water Act that requires point source dischargers to obtain permits, called NPDES permits,
which in Washington State are administered by the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
native growth protection easement (NGPE) An easement granted for the protection of native
vegetation within a sensitive area or its associated buffer. The easement should be recorded
on the appropriate documents of title and filed with the county records division.
native vegetation Vegetation consisting of plant species other than noxious weeds that are
indigenous to the region and that could be reasonably expected to occur naturally on the
site.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) curve number A number that describes the
runoff characteristics of a particular soil type.
new impervious surfaces Those surfaces that receive direct, run-on, or blow-in of rainfall and
(1) expand the existing roadway prism or (2) are upgraded from gravel to bituminous surface
treatment (BST), asphalt, or concrete pavement. Note that existing gravel surfaces are
considered impervious surfaces with the exceptions laid out in the impervious surface
definition. However, a gravel surface that is upgraded to a more impervious surface (gravel
to BST, ACP, or PCCP) is defined as a new impervious surface. Also note that for Minimum
Requirement determination, permeable pavement is considered an impervious surface.
net-new impervious surface The total area of new impervious surface being added to the TDA
minus the total area of existing impervious surface being removed from the TDA. In order to
use this concept, the existing impervious surface removal area must fully revert to a natural
condition as specified in Section 4-3.5.3. The concept of net-new impervious surface applies
only to Minimum Requirement 6 (Flow Control) and is applied at the threshold discharge
area level. (See the definition for effective impervious surface and Figure 3.3, Step 8.)
NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Noneffective impervious surfaces Those new, applicable replaced, or existing impervious

surfaces that are being managed by existing natural dispersion areas meeting the natural
dispersion BMP criteria in Section 5-4.1.2.
Noneffective pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) Those new, applicable replaced,

or existing PGIS surfaces that are being managed by existing natural dispersion areas
meeting the natural dispersion BMP criteria in Section 5-4.1.2.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
Non-fish-bearing stream According to WAC 222-16-030: type Ns waters are non-fish-habitat

streams. Until the fish habitat water type maps are available, an interim water-typing system
applies (see WAC 222-16-031). Type 5 waters are non-fish-habitat streams. (See fish-bearing
stream definition for more details.)
nonmitigated area The area not included as part of the stormwater treatment.
Non-pollution-generating surface (NPGS) A surface that, based on its use, is an insignificant

or low source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. For example, roofs that are subject only to
atmospheric deposition or have normal heating, ventilation, and air conditioning vents;
paved bicycle pathways and pedestrian sidewalks that are separated from roads used by
motor vehicles; fenced fire lanes; infrequently used maintenance access roads; and in-slope
areas of roads. Sidewalks that are regularly treated with salt or other deicing chemicals are
considered pollution-generating impervious surfaces.
Non-road-related project A project involving structures, including rest areas, maintenance

facilities, and ferry terminal buildings.
no-vegetation zone (NVZ) A shallow gravel trench located directly adjacent to the highway
pavement.
O
off-line facilities Runoff treatment facilities to which stormwater runoff is restricted to some
maximum flow rate or volume by a flow-splitter.
off-site Any area lying upstream of the project site that drains onto the site and any area lying
downstream of the site to which the site drains.
oil control The treatment of stormwater runoff with BMPs to remove oil, grease, and total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).
oil/water separator A vault, usually underground, designed to provide a quiescent

environment to separate oil from water.
on-line facilities Runoff treatment facilities that receive all the stormwater runoff from a
drainage area. Flows above the runoff treatment design flow rate or volume are passed
through at a lower-percentage removal efficiency.
on-site The entire property that includes the proposed development.
operational BMP A type of source control BMP that includes schedules of activities,
prohibition of practices, and other managerial actions to prevent or reduce pollutants
entering stormwater. Operational BMPs include formation of a pollution prevention team;
good housekeeping; preventive maintenance procedures; spill prevention and cleanup;
employee training; inspections of pollutant sources and BMPs; recordkeeping; process
changes; raw material and product changes; and recycling of wastes.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
opportunity-based stormwater retrofit A type of stormwater retrofit.
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) The line on the shore established by the fluctuations of
water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the
bank; shelving; changes in the character of soil destruction on terrestrial vegetation; the
presence of litter and debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of
the surrounding area. The ordinary high water mark is found by examining the bed and
banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common
and usual, and so long maintained in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character
distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation. In any area where the
ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the line of mean high water is substituted. In any
area where neither can be found, the channel bank is substituted. In braided channels and
alluvial fans, the ordinary high water mark or substitute must be measured to include the
entire stream feature.
organic matter Decomposed animal or vegetable matter, measured by ASTM D 2974. Organic
matter is an important reservoir of carbon and a dynamic component of soil and the carbon
cycle. It improves soil and plant efficiency by improving soil physical properties including
drainage, aeration, and other structural characteristics. It contains the nutrients, microbes,
and higher-form soil food web organisms necessary for plant growth. The maturity of
organic matter is a measure of its beneficial properties. Raw organic matter can release
water-soluble nutrients (similar to chemical fertilizer). Beneficial organic matter has
undergone a humification process either naturally in the environment or through a
composting process.
orifice An opening with closed perimeter, usually sharp-edged, and of regular form in a plate,
wall, or partition through which water may flow; generally used for the purpose of
measurement or control of water.
outfall Point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a discharge leaves the
permittee’s MS4 and enters a receiving water body or receiving waters. Outfall also includes
the permittee’s MS4 facilities/BMPs designed to infiltrate stormwater.
outlet The point of water disposal from a stream, river, lake, tidewater, or artificial drain.
outlet channel A waterway constructed or altered primarily to carry water from

manufactured structures, such as terraces, tile lines, and diversions.
outlet protection A protective barrier of rock, erosion control blankets, vegetation, or sod
constructed at a conveyance outlet.
outwash soils Soils formed from highly permeable sands and gravels.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
overflow A pipeline or conduit device with an outlet pipe that provides for the discharge of
portions of combined sewer flows into receiving waters or other points of disposal, after a
regular device has allowed the portion of the flow that can be handled by interceptor sewer
lines and pumping and treatment facilities to be carried by and to such water pollution
control structures.
P
PAM A large class of polymers (polyacrylamides), some of which have applications in highway
construction. PAM products are used as soil stabilizers to prevent erosion, flocculants to
remove sediments from stormwater, drilling lubricants, and soil moisture retention
enhancers.
particle size The effective diameter of a particle as measured by sedimentation, sieving, or

micrometric methods.
peak discharge, peak flow The maximum instantaneous rate of flow during a storm, usually in
reference to a specific design storm event.
percolation The movement of water through soil.
percolation rate The rate, often expressed in minutes per inch, at which clear water
maintained at a relatively constant depth seeps out of a standardized test hole that has been
previously saturated—often used synonymously with infiltration rate (short-term infiltration
rate).
permeable pavement A permeable surface that readily transmits fluids into the underlying
base material. The pavement may be permeable concrete, permeable asphalt, or
manufactured systems such as interlocking brick or a combination of sand and brick lattice.
Note that for Minimum Requirement determination, permeable pavement is considered an
impervious surface. Permeable pavement is also considered a pollution-generating
impervious surface if subjected to vehicular use and is used regularly by motor vehicles.
permeable soils Soil materials having a sufficiently rapid infiltration rate so as to greatly
reduce or eliminate surface and stormwater runoff; generally classified as Soil Conservation
Service hydrologic soil types A and B.
pervious pavement See permeable pavement.
pH A measure of the alkalinity or acidity of a substance that is determined by measuring the

concentration of hydrogen ions in the substance. A pH of 7.0 indicates neutral water. A 6.5
reading is slightly acidic.
pipe slope drain A pipe extending from the top to the bottom of a cut or fill slope and
discharging into a stabilized water course, a sediment-trapping device, or a stabilized outfall.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
point of compliance The location at which compliance with a discharge performance standard
or a receiving water quality standard is measured.
point source A general classification of the origin of an air or water pollutant, usually
characterized as smokestacks or outfalls.
pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) An impervious surface that is considered a

significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff, including surfaces that receive direct
rainfall (or run-on or blow-in of rainfall) and are subject to vehicular use; industrial activities;
or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals. Erodible or leachable
materials, wastes, or chemicals are substances that, when exposed to rainfall, measurably
alter the physical or chemical characteristics of the rainfall runoff. Examples include erodible
soils that are stockpiled, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances,
ashes, kiln dust, and garbage container leakage. Metal roofs are also considered pollution-
generating impervious surfaces unless they are coated with an inert, nonleachable material
(such as a baked-on enamel coating). A surface, whether paved or not, is considered subject
to vehicular use if it is regularly used by motor vehicles. The following are considered
regularly used surfaces: roads, permeable pavement, unvegetated road shoulders, bicycle
lanes within the travel lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unfenced fire lanes,
vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways. The following are not considered
regularly used surfaces: paved bicycle pathways separated from roads for motor vehicles,
fenced fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance access roads. A gravel area would be
considered an impervious area and PGIS (when determining minimum requirements or
stormwater modeling) when it is extending the usable shoulder between the edge of paved
shoulder and the slope break point (see HRM FAQs for drawings of Case B, Case C, and Case
D). Gravel areas beyond the slope break point are not considered impervious or PGIS (see
HRM FAQs for drawings of Case A, Case C, Case D, and Case E). The exception to this is when
the gravel area is extending the usable shoulder as shown in Case B. pollution-generating
pervious surface (PGPS) Any nonimpervious surface subject to the ongoing use of
pesticides and fertilizers or loss of soil, such as lawns, landscaped areas, golf courses, parks,
cemeteries, and sports fields. Grass highway shoulders and medians are not subject to such
intensive landscape maintenance practices and are not considered pollution-generating
pervious surfaces. It is WSDOT policy to create self-sustaining, native plant communities that
require no fertilizer and little to no weed control after they are established. During the plant
establishment period, usually the first three years after planting, WSDOT revegetation and
mitigation projects are intensely managed to aid plant establishment. However, throughout
the life of the project, WSDOT practices integrated vegetation management (IVM), which
recognizes herbicides as tools in maintaining planting are as (one of many tools available).
Questions regarding whether a specific area may be considered a pollution-generating
pervious surface should be directed to the local maintenance area superintendent or the
region landscape architect.
porous pavement See permeable pavement.
postproject Description of project site conditions after development.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
predeveloped condition The modeled site conditions prior to development to which

postdevelopment runoff flow rates are matched. (See Minimum Requirement 6 in
Chapter 3.)
preproject Description of project site conditions prior to development.
presumptive approach (versus demonstrative approach) See Section 1-2.2.
pretreatment The removal of material such as solids, grit, grease, and scum from flows to
improve treatability prior to biological or physical treatment processes; may include
screening, grit removal, settling, oil/water separation, or application of a basic treatment
BMP prior to infiltration.
project Any proposed action to alter or develop a site; the proposed action of a permit
application or an approval, which requires drainage review.
project limits For road projects, the beginning project station to the end project station and
from right of way line to right of way line. For nonroad projects, the legal boundaries of land
parcels that are subject to project development (also called the project area perimeter).
project-driven stormwater retrofit A type of stormwater retrofit.
project site The portion of a site to undergo development or redevelopment. For road
projects, it is the area between the beginning and ending mileposts within WSDOT right of
way. It is defined in the formal project definition agreed upon by the region and
Headquarters as to the work to be done, the estimated cost, and the project schedule. For
nonroad projects, refer to the definitions for project limits.
Puget Sound basin Puget Sound south of Admiralty Inlet (including Hood Canal and Saratoga
Passage); the waters north to the Canadian border, including portions of the Strait of
Georgia; the Strait of Juan de Fuca south of the Canadian border; and all the lands draining
into these waters, as mapped in water resource inventory areas (WRIAs) 1 through 19, set
forth in WAC 173-500-040.
R
rational method A means of computing storm drainage flow rates (Q) by using the formula Q
= CIA, where C is a coefficient describing the physical drainage area, I is the rainfall intensity,
and A is the area. (This method is no longer used in the Washington State Department of
Ecology technical manual.)
reach A length of channel with uniform characteristics.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
receiving waters or receiving water body Naturally and/or reconstructed naturally occurring
surface water bodies, such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine
waters, to which a discharged occurs via an outfall or via sheet/dispersed flow. Receiving
waters may also include ground water to which a discharge occurs via facilities/BMPs
designed to infiltrate stormwater.
recharge The addition of water to the zone of saturation (that is, an aquifer).
redevelopment On a site that is already substantially developed (has 35% or more of existing
impervious surface coverage): the creation or addition of impervious surfaces; the expansion
of a building footprint or addition or replacement of a structure; structural development,
including construction, installation, or expansion of a building or other structure;
replacement of impervious surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; and
land disturbing activities.
regional detention facility A stormwater quantity control structure designed to correct

surface water runoff problems within a drainage basin or subbasin, such as regional flooding
or erosion problems; a detention facility sited to detain stormwater runoff from a number of
new developments or areas within a catchment.
release rate The computed peak discharge rate in volume per unit time of surface and
stormwater runoff from a site.replaced impervious surface Those roadway areas that are
excavated to a depth at or below the top of the subgrade (pavement repair work excluded)
and replaced in kind. The subgrade is taken to be the crushed surfacing directly below the
pavement layer (ACP, PCCP, BST). If the removal and replacement of existing pavement does
not go below the pavement layer, as with typical PCCP grinding, ACP planing, or “paver”
projects, the new surfacing is not considered “replaced impervious surface.” Certain
situations that do not include excavation of the existing roadway are also considered
replaced impervious surface. (See the HRM Revisions website’s FAQs for a discussion of
these situations.)
replaced PGIS Those PGIS areas that are removed and replaced in kind by the project, or for
roadway areas that are excavated to a depth at or below the top of the subgrade (pavement
repair work excluded) and replaced in kind. The subgrade is taken to be the crushed
surfacing directly below the pavement layer (ACP, PCCP, BST). If the removal and
replacement of existing pavement does not go below the pavement layer, as with typical
PCCP grinding, ACP planing, or “paver” projects, the new surfacing is not considered
“replaced PGIS.” Certain situations that do not include excavation of the existing roadway
are also considered replaced PGIS. (See the HRM Revisions website’s FAQs for a discussion of
these situations.)
restoration In an area that no longer meets wetland criteria, actions performed to reestablish
wetland functional characteristics and processes that have been lost through alterations,
land uses, or catastrophic events.
retention The process of collecting and holding surface and stormwater runoff with no
surface outflow.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
retention/detention facility (R/D) A type of drainage facility designed either to hold water for
a considerable length of time and then release it by evaporation, plant transpiration, or
infiltration; or to hold surface and stormwater runoff for a short period of time and then
release it to the surface and stormwater management system.
retrofit The renovation of an existing structure or facility to meet changed conditions or to

improve performance.
return frequency (recurrence interval) A statistical representation of the average time

between storm events of a given intensity or size (for example, a stormwater flow that
occurs every two years on average).
reversion of existing impervious surfaces Removing an existing impervious surface and

restoring that area to a pervious state using the methods shown in Section 4-3.5.3. The flow
control benefits for reversion of an existing impervious surface will depend on the level of
reversion (Step 1 or Step 2). At this time, the reversion of an existing impervious surface only
applies to meeting flow control thresholds. It does not apply to runoff treatment thresholds.
right of way (ROW) Public land devoted to the passage of people and goods. State highway
rights of way include state limited access highways inside or outside cities or towns, but not
city or town streets forming part of state highway routes that are not limited access
highways. The term does not include state property under WSDOT jurisdiction that is outside
the right of way lines of a state highway (RCW 90.03.520).
rill A small, intermittent watercourse with steep sides, usually only a few inches deep; often
caused by an increase in surface water flow where soil is cleared of vegetation.
riparian Pertaining to the banks of streams, wetlands, lakes, or tidewater.
riprap A facing layer or protective mound of rocks placed to prevent erosion or sloughing of a
structure or embankment due to flow of surface and stormwater runoff.
riser A vertical pipe extending from the bottom of a pond that is used to control the discharge
rate from a stormwater facility for a specified design storm.
runoff Rainwater or snowmelt that directly leaves an area as a surface drainage.
runoff treatment Pollutant removal to a specified level via engineered or natural stormwater
management systems.
runoff treatment BMP A BMP specifically designed for pollutant removal.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
S
salmonid A member of the fish family Salmonidae, including Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye
and pink salmon; cutthroat, brook, brown, rainbow, and steelhead trout; and Dolly Varden,
kokanee, and char species.
sand filter A constructed depression or basin with a layer of sand that treats stormwater as it
percolates through the sand and is discharged via a central collector pipe.
Sanitary Control Areas (SCAs) Well protection buffers.
Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph method (SBUH) A single-event hydrologic analysis

technique for estimating runoff based on the curve number method. The curve numbers are
published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Urban Hydrology for
Small Watersheds, 55 TR, June 1976. Updated curve numbers are provided in Appendix 4-B.
scour Erosion of channel banks due to excessive velocity of the flow of surface and
stormwater runoff.
SCS Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service), U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
SCS method A single-event hydrologic analysis technique for estimating runoff based on the
curve number method. The curve numbers are published by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, 55 TR, June 1976.
With the change in name from Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the method may be referred to as the NRCS method.
seasonal stream An ephemeral stream.
sediment Fragmented material that originates from weathering and erosion of rocks or
unconsolidated deposits and is transported by, suspended in, or deposited by water.
semiarid Description of a geographical area characterized by light rainfall and having about 10
to 20 inches of annual precipitation.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
sensitive area Any area designated by a federal, state, or local government as having unique
or important environmental characteristics that may require additional protective measures
(also see critical areas). These areas include but are not limited to:
 “Critical habitat” as defined in Section 3 of the federal Endangered Species Act of

1973.
 Designated “critical water resources” as defined in 33 CFR Part 330, Nationwide
Permit Program.
 Water bodies designated as “impaired” under the provision of Section 303d of
the federal Clean Water Act enacted by Public Law 92-500.
 Sole-source aquifers as defined under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, Public
Law 93-523.
 Wellhead protection zones as defined under WAC 246-290, Public Water
Supplies.
 Areas identified in local critical area ordinances or in an approved basin plan.
sheet flow Runoff that flows over the ground surface as a thin, even layer, not concentrated
in a channel.
short-circuiting The passage of runoff through a stormwater treatment facility in less than the
design treatment time.
shotcrete Concrete that is placed by means of a spray nozzle, pneumatically applied.
silt fence A temporary sediment barrier consisting of a geotextile fabric stretched across and
attached to supporting posts, which are entrenched. Adding rigid wire fence backing can
strengthen silt fence.
site The area within the legal boundaries of a parcel (or parcels) of land that is subject to the
development project. For road projects, the site is defined by the length of the project and
the right of way boundaries.
slope Degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal, measured as a numerical ratio,
percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run)
and the second is the vertical distance (rise); for example, 2H:1V. A 2H:1V slope is a 50%
slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, so that a 90°
slope is vertical (maximum), and a 45° slope is 1H:1V (a 100% slope).
soil The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate surface of the earth
that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. (See also topsoil.)
soil amendments Materials that improve soil fertility for establishing vegetation or
permeability for infiltrating runoff.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
soil drainage As a natural condition of the soil, the frequency and duration of periods when
the soil is free of saturation. In well-drained soils, the water is removed readily, but not
rapidly; in poorly drained soils, the root zone is waterlogged for long periods unless
artificially drained, and the roots of ordinary crop plants cannot get enough oxygen; and in
excessively drained soils, the water is removed so completely that most crop plants suffer
from lack of water. Strictly speaking, excessively drained soils are a result of excessive runoff
due to steep slopes or low available water-holding capacity due to small amounts of silt and
clay in the soil material. The following classes are used to express soil drainage:
 Well drained – Excess water drains away rapidly; no mottling occurs within
36 inches of the surface.
 Moderately well drained – Water is removed from the soil somewhat slowly,
resulting in small but significant periods of wetness; mottling occurs between
18 and 36 inches.
 Somewhat poorly drained – Water is removed from the soil slowly enough to
keep it wet for significant periods but not all the time; mottling occurs between
8 and 18 inches.
 Poorly drained – Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet for a large part
of the time; mottling occurs between 0 and 8 inches.
 Very poorly drained – Water is removed so slowly that the water table remains
at or near the surface for a greater part of the time. There may also be periods of
surface ponding. The soil has a black-to-gray surface layer with mottles up to the
surface.
soil permeability The ease with which gases, liquids, or plant roots penetrate or pass through
a layer of soil.
soil stabilization The use of measures such as rock lining, vegetation, or other engineering
structures to prevent the movement of soil when loads are applied to the soil.
sole-source aquifer An aquifer or aquifer system that supplies 50% or more of the drinking
water for a given service area and for which there are no reasonably available alternative
sources should the aquifer become contaminated, and the possibility of contamination
exists. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designates sole-source aquifers, and
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act is the statutory authority for the Sole-Source
Aquifer Protection Program.
source control A structure or operation intended to prevent pollutants from coming into
contact with stormwater, either through physical separation of areas or through careful
management of activities that are sources of pollutants.
 Structural source control BMPs are physical, structural, or mechanical devices or
facilities intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater.
 Operational BMPs are nonstructural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants
entering stormwater.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
spill control device A tee section or down-turned elbow designed to retain a limited volume
of a pollutant that floats on water, such as oil or antifreeze. Spill control devices are passive
and must be cleaned out in order to remove the spilled pollutant.
spill prevention, control, and countermeasures (SPCC) plan A plan prepared by a

construction contractor, as required in Standard Specification 1-07.15(1), to prevent
sediment and other pollutants associated with construction activity from affecting soil, air,
and water quality.
spillway A passage, such as a paved apron or channel carrying surplus water over or around a
dam or similar obstruction, or an open or closed channel used to convey excess water from a
reservoir. A spillway may contain gates, either manually or automatically controlled, to
regulate the discharge of excess water.
stabilized construction entrance A construction site entrance that is reinforced or finished

with media such as riprap, gravel, or hog fuel to minimize the tracking of sediment onto
adjacent streets.
staging area (construction) A site used temporarily during construction for materials or
equipment storage, assembly, or other temporary construction activities.
stairstep grading A technique of grading slopes to minimize erosion, in which continuous

slopes are replaced with a series of terraces.
stand-alone stormwater retrofit A type of stormwater retrofit.
Standard Plans WSDOT Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.
Standardized design drawings for commonly used structures that can be referenced in
contracts. The Headquarters Design Office maintains the Standard Plans.
Standard Specifications WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction. Construction requirements for commonly used structures that can be
referenced in contracts. The Headquarters Construction Office maintains the Standard
Specifications.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) The Washington State law (RCW 43.21C) intended to
minimize environmental damage; modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). SEPA requires that state agencies and local governments consider environmental
factors when making decisions on development proposals over a certain size,
comprehensive plans and zoning requirements, and other programmatic proposals. As part
of this process, environmental documents are prepared and opportunities for public
comment are provided.
steep slope A slope of 40% gradient or steeper within a vertical elevation change of at least
10 feet.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
stoloniferous Description of a type of plant having a long shoot that grows from the central
rosette and droops to the ground, where it roots to form a new plant.
storm frequency The time interval between major storms of predetermined intensity and
volumes of runoff that storm sewers and other structures are designed to handle
hydraulically without surcharging and backflooding (for example, a 2-year, 10-year, or 100-
year storm).
storm sewer system A sewer that carries stormwater and surface water, street wash, and
other washwaters or drainage, but excludes sewage and industrial wastes (also called a
storm drain).
Stormwater BMP Specifications (SWABS) WSDOT web application used to track stormwater
BMPs from design through construction.
stormwater That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or
evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a stormwater
drainage system into a defined surface water body or a constructed infiltration facility.
stormwater facility A constructed component of a stormwater drainage system, designed or

constructed to perform a particular function or multiple functions. Stormwater facilities
include but are not limited to pipes, swales, ditches, culverts, street gutters, detention
ponds, retention ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration devices, catch basins, oil/water
separators, and biofiltration swales.
Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) A technical manual

prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology containing BMPs intended to
prevent, control, and treat pollution in stormwater and to reduce other stormwater-related
impacts on waters of the state. The stormwater manual provides guidance on measures
necessary in eastern Washington to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff
from new development and redevelopment.
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) A technical manual

prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology containing BMPs intended to
prevent, control, and treat pollution in stormwater and to reduce other stormwater-related
impacts on waters of the state. The stormwater manual provides guidance on measures
necessary in western Washington to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff
from new development and redevelopment.
stormwater outfall Any location where concentrated stormwater runoff leaves WSDOT right
of way. Outfalls may discharge to surface waters or groundwater.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
stream An area where surface waters flow sufficiently to produce a defined channel or bed. A
defined channel or bed is an area that demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water,
indicated by hydraulically sorted sediments or the removal of vegetative litter or loosely
rooted vegetation by the action of moving water. The channel or bed need not contain
water year-round. This definition does not include irrigation ditches, canals, stormwater
runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used to convey
streams naturally occurring prior to construction. Topographic features that resemble
streams but have no defined channels (swales) are considered streams when hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses performed pursuant to a development proposal predict formation of a
defined channel after development.
streambanks The usual boundaries, not the flood boundaries, of a stream channel. Right and
left banks are named facing downstream.
structural BMPs Physical, structural, or mechanical devices or facilities intended to prevent

pollutants from entering stormwater.
subgrade A layer of stone or soil used as the underlying base for a BMP.
substrate The natural soil base underlying a BMP measure.
swale A natural depression or shallow drainage conveyance with relatively gentle side slopes,
generally with flow depths less than 1 foot, used to temporarily store, route, or filter runoff.
T
tackifier A plant-based or synthetic polymer used to help hydroseed mixes stick together and
adhere to the soil. Some tackifiers directly stabilize soil.
take Defined under the federal Endangered Species Act as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct,” including
modification to a species habitat. The habitat could be a riparian area, spawning bed, or a
rearing area. Changing the hydraulic characteristics of a stream system may result in a
habitat alteration and could be considered a take. Release of physical, chemical, or biological
pollutants into a stream system may result in a take.
Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) A Washington State Department of

Ecology process for reviewing and approving new stormwater treatment technologies.
temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan A plan that includes all physical
and procedural BMPs for preventing erosion and turbid discharges throughout a project and
during construction.
terrace An embankment or combination of an embankment and channel across a slope to

control erosion by diverting or storing surface runoff instead of permitting it to flow
uninterrupted down the slope.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
threatened species Any species (other than pest insects) likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
threshold discharge area (TDA) An on-site area draining to a single natural discharge location
or multiple natural discharge locations that combine within ¼ mile downstream (as
determined by the shortest flow path).
tight-line A continuous length of aboveground pipe that conveys water from one point to
another (typically down a steep slope) with no inlets or collection points in between.
till A layer of poorly sorted soil deposited by glacial action that generally has very low
infiltration rates.
time of concentration The time necessary for surface runoff to reach the outlet of a subbasin
from the hydraulically most remote point in the tributary drainage area.
tire wash A facility for washing mud off vehicles to prevent track-out of sediment.
topsoil Surface soil presumed to be fertile and used to cover planting areas. Topsoil must
meet ASTM D 5268 Standard Specification, and water permeability must be 0.6 inches per
hour or greater. Organic matter must have no more than 10% of nutrients in mineralized
water-soluble forms. Topsoil must not have phytotoxic characteristics.
total maximum daily load (TMDL) – Water Cleanup Plan A calculation of the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards
and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources. A TMDL (also known as a Water
Cleanup Plan) is the sum of allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point
sources and nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a margin of safety to ensure the
water body can be used for the purposes the state has designated. The calculation must also
account for seasonal variation in water quality. Water quality standards are set by states,
territories, and tribes. They identify the uses for each water body; for example, drinking
water supply, contact recreation (such as swimming), and aquatic support (such as fishing)
and the scientific criteria to support each use. The federal Clean Water Act, Section 303,
establishes the water quality standards and TMDL programs.
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) TPH-Gx: the qualitative and quantitative method
(extended) for volatile (gasoline) petroleum products in water; and TPH-Dx: the qualitative
and quantitative method (extended) for semivolatile (diesel) petroleum products in water.
total suspended solids (TSS) That portion of the solids carried by stormwater that can be
captured on a standard glass filter.
toxic Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life.
track walking A technique for roughening soils on slopes to reduce erosion, involving
systematically covering soils with cleat marks that run perpendicular to the slope, for
detaining and infiltrating runoff.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
trash rack A structural device used to prevent debris from entering a spillway or other
hydraulic structure.
travel time The estimated time for surface water to flow between two points of interest.
treatment liner A layer of soil designed to slow the rate of infiltration and provide sufficient
pollutant removal to protect groundwater quality.
treatment train A combination of two or more treatment facilities connected in series.
triangular silt dike A geotextile-encased foam check dam.
trip end The expected number of vehicles using a parking area, represented by the projected
trip end counts for the parking area associated with a proposed land use. Trip end counts are
estimated using either Trip Generation (published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers) or a traffic study prepared by a professional engineer or transportation specialist
with expertise in traffic volume estimation. Trip end counts must be made for the design life
of the project. For project sites with seasonal or varied use, the highest period of expected
traffic impacts is evaluated.
turbidity Dispersion or scattering of light in a liquid, caused by suspended solids and other
factors; commonly used as a measure of suspended solids in a liquid. Turbidity is a state-
regulated parameter. Turbidity can be measured in the field with a hand-held meter and is
recorded in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).
U
underdrain Plastic pipes with holes drilled through the top, installed on the bottom of an
infiltration facility, that are used to collect and remove excess runoff.
underground injection control (UIC) well A bored, drilled, or driven shaft whose depth is
greater than the largest surface dimension; a dug hole whose depth is greater than the
largest surface dimension; an improved sinkhole; a subsurface fluid distribution system that
includes an assemblage of perforated pipes, drain tiles, or other similar mechanisms
intended to distribute fluids below the surface of the ground. Examples of UIC wells or
subsurface infiltration systems are drywells, drainfields, and french drains that include pipes
and other similar devices that discharge to ground. Underground Injection Control is a
federal regulatory program established to protect underground sources of drinking water
from UIC well discharges.
unstable slope A sloping area of land that at any time exhibits mass movement of earth.
upgrade The replacement of paved areas with a better surface or in a way that enhances the
traffic capacity of the road.
urban growth area (UGA) Those areas designated by a county according to RCW 36.70A.110.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
urbanized area An area designated and identified by the U.S. Bureau of Census according to
the following criteria: a densely settled area that has a minimum residential population of
50,000 people and a minimum average density of 1,000 people per square mile.
V
Vactor truck A vacuum truck used to remove the waste material found in the bottom of a
catch basin.
vault See dry vault or tank and wet vault or tank.
vegetated filter strip A facility designed to provide runoff treatment of conventional

pollutants (but not nutrients) through the process of biofiltration.
vertical curve The up and down component of a roadway curve.
W
water bar A small ditch cut perpendicular to the flow of water in roads or hillsides. A cross-
sectional view reveals a ditch with the excavated material placed on the downslope side.
water body Surface waters including rivers, streams, lakes, marine waters, estuaries, and
wetlands.
Water Cleanup Plan See total maximum daily load.
water quality A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of
water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose.
water quality standards The minimum requirements for water purity for uses like drinking
water supply, contact recreation (such as swimming), and aquatic support (such
as fishing). The Washington State Department of Ecology sets water quality standards for
Washington State. Surface water and groundwater standards are established in WAC
173-201A and WAC 173-200, respectively.
water quality treatment See runoff treatment.
water resource inventory area (WRIA) A geographic area within which water drains into a
particular river, stream, or receiving water body, identified and numbered by the state of
Washington (defined in WAC 173-500).
watershed A geographic region within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or
body of water. Watersheds can be as large as those identified and numbered by the state of
Washington as water resource inventory areas (WRIAs), defined in WAC 173-500.
waters of the state All surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of
Washington, including lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, undergroundwaters,
saltwaters, and wetlands.

April 2019
Glossary of Terms
water table The upper surface or top of the saturated portion of the soil or bedrock layer,
indicating the uppermost extent of groundwater.
wattle Temporary erosion and sediment control barriers consisting of any plant material that
is wrapped in biodegradable fiber, tubular plastic, or similar encasing material. Wattles are
typically 8 to 10 inches in diameter and 25 to 30 feet in length.
weir A device for measuring or regulating the flow of water.
wetland functions See functions/wetland.
wetlands Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a

frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas. They do not include artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland
sites, including but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals,
detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities;
or wetlands unintentionally created after July 1, 1990, as a result of construction of a road,
street, or highway. Wetlands may include artificial wetlands intentionally created from
nonwetland areas to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from the conversion of wetlands.
(Water bodies not included in this definition of wetlands, as well as those mentioned in the
definition, are still waters of the state.)
wet pond A facility that provides water quality treatment for stormwater by using a
permanent pool of water to remove conventional pollutants from runoff through
sedimentation, biological uptake, and plant filtration. Wet ponds are designed to (1)
optimize water quality by providing retention time in order to settle out particles of fine
sediment to which pollutants such as heavy metals absorb and (2) to allow biological activity
to occur that metabolizes nutrients and organic pollutants.
wet vault or tank Underground storage facility that treats stormwater for water quality
through the use of a permanent pool of water that acts as a settling basin. It is designed (1)
to optimize water quality by providing retention time in order to settle out particles of fine
sediment that absorb pollutants such as heavy metals and (2) to allow biological activity to
occur that metabolizes nutrients and organic pollutants.

April 2019

ManuaL Highway Runoff 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ManuaL Highway Runoff 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ManuaL Highway Runoff 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Highway Runoff

Engineering and Regional Operations

Title VI Notice to Public

Introduction to the HRM

1-1 Purpose, Need, and Scope ..................................................................................................... 1-1

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 1-i

Page 1-ii WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

1-1 Purpose, Need, and Scope

1-2 Regulatory Standing of the Manual

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 1-1

1-2.1 Local Requirements

Page 1-2 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

1-2.2 Presumptive vs. Demonstrative Approaches to Protecting

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 1-3

1-3 Organization of This Manual

Page 1-4 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

1-4 How to Use This Manual

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 1-5

Page 1-6 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

Stormwater Planning and

2-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2-1

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2-i

Page 2-ii WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.04

2-1.1 Development Team

2-1.2 Site Assessment

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2-1

2-1.2.1 Information Sources

Page 2-2 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

2-1.2.2 Geotechnical Evaluations

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2-3

2-1.2.3 Right of Way

Page 2-4 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

2-1.3.1 Stormwater Scoping Package for Stand-Alone Stormwater Retrofit

2-1.3.2 Project Summary

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2-5

2-1.3.3 Environmental Documentation

2-1.3.4 Hydraulic Report

2-1.3.5 Construction Planning

Page 2-6 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

2-1.3.6 Contract Plan Sheets

2-1.3.7 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E)

2-1.3.8 Underground Injection Control Wells

2-2 Developer Projects

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2-7

2-3 Stormwater Facility Design Approach

2-3.1 Context Sensitive Solutions

2-3.2 Stormwater Facility Design Strategy

Page 2-8 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

2-3.3 BMP Design and Project Timing

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2-9

2-4 Special Design Considerations

Page 2-10 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

2-4.1.3 Aquifers and Wellhead Protection Areas

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2-11

2-4.1.4 Streams and Riparian Areas

2-4.2 303(d)- Listed Water Bodies and Approved TMDL Boundaries

Page 2-12 WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05

WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.05 Page 2-13

2-4.5 Ferry Terminals

2-4.7 Watershed and Basin Plans