m
 
(41 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{alert|Site is in development|alert-under-construction}}
 
 
 
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left: 10px; width:100px;"
 
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left: 10px; width:100px;"
 
|-  
 
|-  
| colspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | '''Recommended pollutant removal efficiencies, in percent, for dry swale BMPs. [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs#References Sources]. NOTE: removal efficiencies are 100 percent for water that is infiltrated.<br>
+
| colspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | '''Recommended pollutant removal efficiencies, in percent, for wet swale BMPs. [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs#References Sources]. NOTE: removal efficiencies are 100 percent for water that is infiltrated.<br>
 
<font size =1>TSS=total suspended solids; TP=total phosphorus; PP=particulate phosphorus; DP=dissolved phosphorus; TN=total nitrogen'''</font size>
 
<font size =1>TSS=total suspended solids; TP=total phosphorus; PP=particulate phosphorus; DP=dissolved phosphorus; TN=total nitrogen'''</font size>
 
|-
 
|-
Line 15: Line 13:
 
|'''Hydrocarbons'''
 
|'''Hydrocarbons'''
 
|-
 
|-
| 40/20<sup>1</sup>
+
| 35/20<sup>1</sup>
 
| 0
 
| 0
 
| 0
 
| 0
Line 22: Line 20:
 
| 35
 
| 35
 
| 35
 
| 35
| ND
+
| ND<sup>5</sup>
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | <font size=1><sup>1</sup> 40 percent credit if a check dam is employed; 20 percent credit if no check dam is employed; <sup>2</sup> Value represents the median removal for total Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn using data from the [http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/03-SW-1COh%20BMP%20Database%202016%20Summary%20Stats.pdf International Stormwater BMP database] (2016 summaries); removal for dissolved metal is 0; Data from the International Stormwater BMP database, 2016, for fecal coliform bacteria; <sup>4</sup> From the International Stormwater BMP database, 2016, for total nitrogen.</font size>
+
| colspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | <font size=1><sup>1</sup> 35 percent credit if a check dam is employed; 20 percent credit if no check dam is employed; <sup>2</sup> Value represents the median removal for total Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn using data from the [http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/03-SW-1COh%20BMP%20Database%202016%20Summary%20Stats.pdf International Stormwater BMP database] (2016 summaries); removal for dissolved metal is 0; <sup>3</sup> Data from the International Stormwater BMP database, 2016, for fecal coliform bacteria; <sup>4</sup> From the International Stormwater BMP database, 2016, for total nitrogen; <sup>5</sup> No data found.</font size>
 
|}
 
|}
  
[http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Overview_of_stormwater_credits Credit] refers to the quantity of stormwater or pollutant reduction achieved either by an individual [[Glossary#B|Best Management Practice]] BMP or cumulatively with multiple BMPs. Stormwater credits are a tool for local stormwater authorities who are interested in  
+
[[File:Pdf image.png|100px|thumb|left|alt=pdf image|<font size=3>[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=File:Calculating_credits_for_wet_swale_(wetland_channel)_-_Minnesota_Stormwater_Manual_May_2022.pdf Download pdf]</font size>]]
 +
[[File:Summary image.jpg|100px|left|thumb|alt=image|<font size=3>[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=File:Credit_page_descriptions.mp4 Page video summary]</font size>]]
 +
[[File:Technical information page image.png|100px|left|alt=image]]
 +
 
 +
{{alert|Models are often selected to calculate credits. The model selected depends on your objectives. For compliance with the Construction Stormwater permit, the model must be based on the assumption that an instantaneous volume is captured by the BMP.|alert-danger}}
 +
 
 +
{{alert|Swales can be an important tool for retention and detention of stormwater runoff. Depending on design and construction, swales may provide additional benefits, including cleaner air, carbon sequestration, improved biological habitat, and aesthetic value. See the section [[Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) and sustainable stormwater management]].|alert-success}}
 +
 
 +
[http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Overview_of_stormwater_credits Credit] refers to the quantity of stormwater or pollutant reduction achieved either by an individual <span title="One of many different structural or non–structural methods used to treat runoff"> '''best management practice'''</span> (BMP) or cumulatively with multiple BMPs. Stormwater credits are a tool for local stormwater authorities who are interested in  
 
*providing incentives to site developers to encourage the [[Credits for Better Site design|preservation of natural areas and the reduction of the volume of stormwater]] runoff being conveyed to a best management practice (BMP);  
 
*providing incentives to site developers to encourage the [[Credits for Better Site design|preservation of natural areas and the reduction of the volume of stormwater]] runoff being conveyed to a best management practice (BMP);  
*complying with permit requirements, including antidegradation (see [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Construction_stormwater_permit]; [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/MS4_General_Permit]);
+
*complying with permit requirements, including antidegradation (see [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Construction_stormwater_program Construction permit]; [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_Program_for_Municipal_Separate_Storm_Sewer_Systems_(MS4) Municipal (MS4) permit]);
 
*meeting the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Performance_goals_for_new_development,_re-development_and_linear_projects MIDS performance goal]; or  
 
*meeting the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Performance_goals_for_new_development,_re-development_and_linear_projects MIDS performance goal]; or  
*meeting or complying with water quality objectives, including [[Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)|Total Maximum Daily Load]] (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs).
+
*meeting or complying with water quality objectives, including <span title="The amount of a pollutant from both point and nonpoint sources that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards"> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Total_Maximum_Daily_Loads_(TMDLs) '''total maximum daily load''']</span> (TMDL) <span title="The portion of a receiving water's assimilative capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution"> '''wasteload allocations'''</span> (WLAs).
  
This page provides a discussion of how [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Dry_swale_(Grass_swale) dry swales] can achieve stormwater credits. Swales with and without [[Glossary#U|underdrains]] are both discussed, with separate sections for each type of system as appropriate.
+
This page provides a discussion of how [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Wet_swale_(wetland_channel) wet swales] can achieve stormwater credits.
  
 
==Overview==
 
==Overview==
[[File:dry swale credit picture 1.jpg|thumb|300px|alt=schematic of dry swale|<font size=3>Schematic showing characteristics of a dry swale.</font size>]]
+
A wet <span title="Are configured as shallow, linear channels. They typically have vegetative cover such as turf or native perennial grasses"> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Dry_swale_(Grass_swale) '''swale''']</span> acts as a very long and linear shallow <span title="A bioretention practice having an underdrain. All water entering the practice is filtered through engineered media and filtered water is returned to the storm sewer system."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bioretention '''biofiltration''']</span> or linear <span title="Stormwater wetlands are similar in design to stormwater ponds and mainly differ by their variety of water depths and associated vegetative complex."> '''[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_wetlands stormwater wetland]'''</span> system. Wet swales do not provide volume reduction and have limited treatment capability. Incorporation of <span title="A check dam is a structure installed perpendicular to flow in a natural or manmade conveyance channel to reduce flow velocity. By slowing flow velocities, check dams can serve multiple functions including reduction of channel scour and erosion, enhancement of sediment trapping, and greater treatment of the water quality control volume via enhanced water detention or retention. Typical check dam materials include rock, earth, wood, and concrete. "> '''check dams'''</span> into the design allows treatment of a portion or all of the <span title="The volume of water that is treated by a BMP."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Water_quality_criteria '''Water Quality Volume''']</span> within a series of cells created by the check dams. Wet swales planted with [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Plants_for_swales emergent wetland plant species] provide improved pollutant removal. Wet swales may be used as <span title="Pretreatment reduces maintenance and prolongs the lifespan of structural stormwater BMPs by removing trash, debris, organic materials, coarse sediments, and associated pollutants prior to entering structural stormwater BMPs. Implementing pretreatment devices also improves aesthetics by capturing debris in focused or hidden areas. Pretreatment practices include settling devices, screens, and pretreatment vegetated filter strips."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Pretreatment '''pretreatment''']</span> practices. Wet swales are commonly used for drainage areas less than 5 acres in size.
 
 
Dry swales, sometimes called grass swales, are similar to [[Bioretention|bioretention]] cells but are configured as shallow, linear channels. Dry swales function primarily as a conveyance BMP, but provide treatment of stormwater runoff, particularly when used in tandem with [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Check_dams_for_stormwater_swales check dams] that temporarily retain water in a series of cells. Dry swales with an [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Glossary#U underdrain] and [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Design_criteria_for_bioretention#Materials_specifications_-_filter_media engineered soil media] are considered a [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Glossary#F filtration practice]. Dry swales with in-situ soils capable of infiltration, ([[Design infiltration rates|A or B soils]]) are considered [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Glossary#I infiltration practices]. Dry swales are designed to prevent standing water. Dry swales typically have [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Plants_for_swales vegetative cover] such as turf or native perennial grasses.
 
  
 
===Pollutant Removal Mechanisms===
 
===Pollutant Removal Mechanisms===
Dry swales without check dams or with underdrains primarily remove pollutants through [[Glossary#F|filtration]] during conveyance of stormwater runoff. Dry swales may also provide some volume reduction benefits through [[Glossary#I|infiltration]] and [[Glossary#E|evapotranspiration]] during conveyance or below an underdrain. Water quality treatment is also recognized through biological and microbiological uptake, and soil adsorption. [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Check_dams_for_stormwater_swales Check dams] may be incorporated into dry swale design to enhance infiltration.
+
Wet swales without check dams primarily remove pollutants through <span title="Filtration Best Management Practices (BMPs) treat urban stormwater runoff as it flows through a filtering medium, such as sand or an organic material. They are generally used on small drainage areas (5 acres or less) and are primarily designed for pollutant removal. They are effective at removing total suspended solids (TSS), particulate phosphorus, metals, and most organics. They are less effective for soluble pollutants such as dissolved phosphorus, chloride, and nitrate."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Filtration '''filtration''']</span> during conveyance of stormwater runoff. Wet swales do not achieve significant volume reduction. [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Check_dams_for_stormwater_swales Check dams] may be incorporated into wet swale design to enhance settling and filtration of solids.
  
 
===Location in the Treatment Train===
 
===Location in the Treatment Train===
Dry swales may be located throughout the [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Using_the_treatment_train_approach_to_BMP_selection treatment train], including the main form of conveyance between or out of BMPs, at the end of the treatment train, or designed as off-line configurations where the [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Glossary#W water quality volume] is diverted to the filtration or infiltration practice. In any case, the practice may be applied as part of a stormwater management system to achieve one or more of the following objectives:
+
Wet swales provide limited water quality treatment and no volume control and are not recommended practices unless options for other BMPs are limited. Wet swales do however, provide additional <span title="Green stormwater infrastructure is designed to mimic nature and capture rainwater where it falls. Green infrastructure reduces and treats stormwater at its source while while also providing multiple community benefits such as improvements in water quality, reduced flooding, habitat, carbon capture, etc."> '''Green infrastructure'''</span> benefits because they are vegetated.
*reduce stormwater pollutants (filtration or infiltration practices)
+
 
*increase groundwater recharge (infiltration practices)
+
Wet swales are designed primarily as in-line systems for stormwater quality and typically are used in conjunction with other structural controls in stormwater <span title="Multiple BMPs that work together to remove pollutants utilizing combinations of hydraulic, physical, biological, and chemical methods"> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Using_the_treatment_train_approach_to_BMP_selection '''treatment trains''']</span>. Wet swales may be used at various locations within a treatment train] and can be used for pretreatment, conveyance, and/or primary treatment.
*decrease runoff peak flow rates (filtration or infiltration practices)
 
*decrease the volume of stormwater runoff (infiltration practices)
 
*preserve base flow in streams (infiltration practices)
 
*reduce thermal impacts of runoff (filtration or infiltration practices)
 
  
 
==Methodology for calculating credits==
 
==Methodology for calculating credits==
This section describes the basic concepts and equations used to calculate credits for volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP). Specific methods for calculating credits are discussed [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Calculating_credits_for_swale#Methods_for_calculating_credits later in this article].
+
This section describes the basic concepts and equations used to calculate credits for Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
  
Dry swale practices generate credits for volume, TSS,and TP. Dry swale practices with an underdrain do not substantially reduce the volume of runoff but may qualify for a partial volume credit as a result of evapotranspiration, infiltration occurring through the sidewalls above the underdrain, and infiltration below the underdrain piping. Dry swale practices are effective at reducing concentrations of other pollutants including metals and hydrocarbons. They are generally not effective at removing bacteria. This article does not provide information on calculating credits for pollutants other than TSS and TP, but references are provided that may be useful for calculating credits for [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Calculating_credits_for_swale#Other_pollutants other pollutants].  
+
Wet swale practices generate credits for TSS. Wet swale practices are moderately effective at reducing concentrations of metals. They are somewhat effective at removing bacteria. This article does not provide information on calculating credits for pollutants other than TSS, but references are provided that may be useful for calculating credits for other pollutants.
  
 
===Assumptions and Approach===
 
===Assumptions and Approach===
In developing the credit calculations, it is assumed the swale is properly designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. If any of these assumptions is not valid, the BMP may not qualify for credits or credits should be reduced based on reduced ability of the BMP to achieve volume or pollutant reductions. For guidance on design, construction, and maintenance, [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Dry_swale_(Grass_swale) see the appropriate article within the Manual].
+
In developing the credit calculations, it is assumed the swale is properly designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. If any of these assumptions is not valid, the BMP may not qualify for credits or credits should be reduced based on reduced ability of the BMP to achieve volume or pollutant reductions. For guidance on design, construction, and maintenance, [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Wet_swale_(wetland_channel) see the appropriate article within the Manual].
  
 
{{alert|[[Pretreatment]] is required for all filtration and infiltration practices|alert-danger}}
 
{{alert|[[Pretreatment]] is required for all filtration and infiltration practices|alert-danger}}
  
Unlike other BMPs such as bioretention and permeable pavement, credits for swales are calculated in two ways. First, if check dams are incorporated into the design, the water quality volume (V<sub>WQ</sub>) is assumed to be delivered instantaneously to the BMP and stored as water ponded behind the check dam, above the soil or filter media, and below the overflow point of the check dam. V<sub>WQ</sub> can vary depending on the stormwater management objective(s). For construction stormwater, V<sub>WQ</sub> is 1 inch times new impervious surface area. For [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Minimal_Impact_Design_Standards MIDS], the V<sub>WQ</sub> is 1.1 inches times impervious surface area.
+
Unlike other BMPs such as bioretention and permeable pavement, credits for swales are calculated in two ways. First, if check dams are incorporated into the design, the water quality volume (V<sub>WQ</sub>) is assumed to be delivered as an <span title="The maximum volume of water that can be retained by a stormwater practice (bmp) if the water was instantaneously added to the practice. It equals the depth of the practice times the average area of the practice. For some bmps (e.g. bioretention, infiltration trenches and basins, swales with check dams), the volume is the water stored or retained above the media, while for other practices (e.g. permeable pavement, tree trenches) the volume is the water stored or retained within the media."> '''instantaneous volume'''</span> to the BMP and stored as water ponded behind the check dam, above the soil or filter media, and below the overflow point of the check dam. V<sub>WQ</sub> can vary depending on the stormwater management objective(s). For construction stormwater, V<sub>WQ</sub> is 1 inch times new impervious surface area. For [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Minimal_Impact_Design_Standards MIDS], the V<sub>WQ</sub> is 1.1 inches times impervious surface area.
 
 
Second, if check dams are not incorporated into the swale, water will infiltrate into the underlying soil or filter media as it is conveyed along the swale. The amount of water captured in this manner is a function of the underlying soil permeability and the length of time flowing water is in contact with the soil, which in turn is affected by the slope of the swale.
 
  
===Volume credit calculations - check dams and no underdrain===
+
Second, if check dams are not incorporated into the swale, water will be filtered as it is conveyed along the swale. Some settling also occurs as the water is conveyed. The extent of filtration is a function of the channel roughness, including vegetation effects, and the slope of the swale, which affects the velocity of the water and thus settling.
[[File:MIDS swale dimensions no drain.png|300px|thumb|alt=schematic swale no drain|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating terms and dimensions used for volume and pollutant calculations, no underdrain.</font size>]]
 
  
Volume credits are typically calculated based on the capacity of the BMP and its ability to permanently remove stormwater runoff from the existing stormwater collection system. When check dams are incorporated into the design, these credits are assumed to be instantaneous values entirely based on the capacity of the BMP for any storm event. Instantaneous volume reduction, or event based volume reduction of a BMP can be converted to annual volume reduction percentages using the [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_calculator MIDS calculator] or other appropriate modeling tools.
+
===Total suspended solids===
 +
[[File:Profile of swale with structural check dams.png|300px|thumb|alt=schematic of swale with check dams|<font size=3>Profile of swale with structural check dams (not to scale). Source: [http://www.virginiadot.org/business/locdes/bmp_designmanual.asp Virginia DOT BMP Design Manual], Chapter 6. Click on image to enlarge.</font size>]]
  
Credits for dry swales with check dams are dependent on multiple design factors of the swale channel and side slopes, as well as infiltration rates for underlying soils. The water quality volume (V<sub>wq</sub>) achieved behind each check dam (instantaneous volume) is given by
+
The water quality volume (V<sub>wq</sub>) achieved behind each check dam (instantaneous volume), in cubic feet, is given by
  
<math> V_{wq} = h^2 * (h * H + B_w)]/(2S) </math>
+
<math> V_{wq} = 1728 h^2 * (h * H + B_w)]/(2S) </math>
  
 
where
 
where
:h = check dam height (inches);
+
:h = check dam height (inches)
:H = horizontal component of the swale side slope (1 vertical : H horizontal)(inches);
+
:H = horizontal component of the swale side slope (1 vertical : H horizontal)(inches)
 
:S = slope (unitless); and
 
:S = slope (unitless); and
:B<sub>w</sub> = channel bottom width (inches).
+
:Bw = channel bottom width (inches)
 
 
Convert the volume to cubic feet by dividing by 1728.
 
  
 
Add the V<sub>wq</sub> for each check dam together to obtain the cumulative water quality volume for the swale.
 
Add the V<sub>wq</sub> for each check dam together to obtain the cumulative water quality volume for the swale.
  
For an example calculation, [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Check_dams_for_stormwater_swales#Sample_calculation link here].
+
TSS reduction credits correspond with the volume captured by swale check dams and is given by
 
 
Some of the V<sub>WQ</sub> will be lost to evapotranspiration rather than all being lost to infiltration. In terms of a water quantity credit, this differentiation is unimportant, but it may be important if attempting to calculate actual infiltration into the underlying soil.
 
 
 
The annual volume captured and infiltrated by the BMP can be determined with appropriate modeling tools, including the [[MIDS calculator]]. Example values are shown below for a scenario using the MIDS calculator.  For example, a permeable pavement system designed to capture 1 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces will capture 89 percent of annual runoff from a site with B (SM) soils.
 
 
 
{{:Annual volume treated as a function of soil and water quality volume}}
 
 
 
===Volume credit calculations - check dams with an underdrain===
 
[[File:MIDS swale dimensions.png|300px|thumb|alt=schematic swale no drain|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating terms and dimensions used for volume and pollutant calculations, with underdrain.</font size>]]
 
[[file:Bioretention water loss raised underdrain.png|300px|thumb|alt=water loss mechanisms bioretention with raised underdrain|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the different water loss terms for a swale (biofiltration) BMP with a raised underdrain.</font size>]]
 
 
 
Volume credit for a swale with check dams and an underdrain is the same as for a [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Calculating_credits_for_bioretention#Volume_credit_calculations_-_underdrain biofiltration BMP], although some of the BMP configurations differ somewhat. Volume credits are available only if the BMP permanently removes a portion of the stormwater runoff via infiltration through sidewalls or beneath the underdrain piping, or through evapotranspiration. These credits are assumed to be instantaneous values based on the design capacity of the BMP for a specific storm event. Instantaneous volume reduction, also termed event based volume reduction, can be converted to annual volume reduction percentages using the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Performance_curves_for_MIDS_calculator MIDS calculator] or other appropriate modeling tools.
 
 
 
Volume credits for a dry swale with check dams and underdrains are calculated by a combination of infiltration through the unlined sides and bottom of the basin (the area below the underdrain), the volume loss through evapotranspiration (ET), and the retention volume below a raised underdrain, if applicable (this is based on the assumption that this stored water will infiltrate into the underlying soil). The main design variables impacting the volume credits include whether the underdrain is elevated above the native soils and if an impermeable liner on the sides or bottom of the basin is used. Other design variables include surface area at the check dam overflow, media top surface area, underdrain location, and basin bottom locations, total depth of media, [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Soil_water_storage_properties soil water holding capacity and media porosity], and [[Design infiltration rates|infiltration rate of underlying soils]].
 
 
 
{{alert|For the following equations, units most commonly used in practice are given and unit correction factors are based on those units|alert-info}}
 
 
 
The following calculations are for a single check dam. To get the total volume credit add the volumes for each check dam.
 
 
 
The volume credit (V) for a dry swale with a check dam and underdrain, in cubic feet, is given by
 
 
 
<math> V = V_{inf_B} + V_{inf_s} + V_{ET} + V_U </math>
 
 
 
where:
 
:V<sub>inf<sub>b</sub></sub> = volume of infiltration through the bottom of the basin (cubic feet);
 
:V<sub>inf<sub>s</sub></sub> = volume of infiltration through the sides of the basin (cubic feet);
 
:V<sub>ET</sub> = volume reduction due to evapotranspiration (cubic feet); and
 
:V<sub>U</sub> = volume of water stored beneath the underdrain that will infiltrate into the underlying soil (cubic feet).
 
 
 
Volume credits for infiltration through the bottom of the basin (V<sub>inf<sub>b</sub></sub>) are accounted for only if the bottom of the basin is not lined. As long as water continues to draw down, some infiltration will occur through the bottom of the BMP.  However, it is assumed that when an underdrain is included in the installation, the majority of water will be filtered through the media and exit through the underdrain. Because of this, the drawdown time is likely to be short. Volume credit for infiltration through the bottom of the basin is given by
 
 
 
<math> V_{inf_B} = A_B\  DDT\ I_R/12 / 2 </math>
 
 
 
where
 
:I<sub>R</sub> = [[Design infiltration rates|design infiltration rate]] of underlying soil (inches per hour);
 
:A<sub>B</sub> = surface area at the bottom of the basin (square feet); and
 
:DDT = drawdown time for ponded water (hours).
 
 
 
Because of the slope in a swale and the resulting unequal pool depth behind a check dam, a correction factor of 2 is included in the above equation.
 
 
 
{{alert|The MIDS calculator assigns a default value of 0.06 inches per hour, equivalent to a D soil, to I<sub>R</sub>. This is based on the assumption that most water will drain to the underdrain, but that some loss to underlying soil will occur. A conservative approach assuming a D soil was thus chosen.|alert-info}}
 
 
 
The drawdown time is typically a maximum of 48 hours, which is designed to be protective of plants grown in the media. The [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Construction_stormwater_permit Construction Stormwater permit] requires drawdown within 48 hours and recommends 24 hours when discharges are to a trout stream. With a properly functioning underdrain, the drawdown time is likely to be considerably less than 48 hours.
 
 
 
Volume credit for infiltration through the sides of the basin is accounted for only if the sides of the basin are not lined with an impermeable liner. Volume credit for infiltration through the sides of the basin is given by
 
 
 
<math> V_{inf_s} = (A_O - A_U)\ DDT\  I_R/12 </math>
 
 
 
where
 
:A<sub>O</sub> = the surface area at the overflow (square feet); and
 
:A<sub>U</sub> = the surface area at the underdrain (square feet).
 
 
 
{{alert|The MIDS calculator assigns a default value of 0.06 inches per hour, equivalent to a D soil, to I<sub>R</sub>. This is based on the assumption that most water will drain to the underdrain, but that some loss to underlying soil will occur. A conservative approach assuming a D soil was thus chosen.|alert-info}}
 
 
 
This equation assumes water will infiltrate through the entire sideslope area during the period when water is being drawn down. This is not the case, however, since the water level will decline in the BMP. The MIDS calculator assumes a linear drop in water level and thus divides the right hand term in the above equation by 2.
 
 
 
Volume credit for media storage capacity below the underdrain (V<sub>U</sub>) is accounted for only if the underdrain is elevated above the native soils. Volume credit for media storage capacity below the underdrain is given by
 
 
 
<math> V_U =  (n-FC)\ D_U\ (A_U + A_B)/2 </math>
 
 
 
where
 
:A<sub>B</sub> = surface area at the bottom of the media (square feet);
 
:n = media porosity (cubic feet per cubic foot);
 
:FC is the field capacity of the soil, in cubic feet per cubic foot; and
 
:D<sub>U</sub> = the depth of media below the underdrain (feet).
 
 
 
This is an instantaneous volume. This will somewhat overestimate actual storage when the majority of water is being captured by the underdrains. This equation assumes water between the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_water_storage_properties soil porosity and field capacity] will infiltrate into the underlying soil.
 
 
 
The volume of water lost through ET is assumed to be the smaller of two calculated values: potential ET and measured ET. Potential ET (ET<sub>pot</sub>) is equal to the amount of water stored in the basin between [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_water_storage_properties field capacity and the wilting point]. Measured ET (ET<sub>mea</sub>) is the amount of water lost to ET as measured using available data and is assumed to be 0.2 inches/day. ET<sub>mea</sub> is converted to ET by multiplying by a factor of 0.5.  ET is considered to occur over a period equal to the drawdown time of the basin. Volume credit for evapotranspiration is given by the lesser of
 
 
 
<math> ET_{mea} = (0.2/12)\ A\ 0.5\ t </math>
 
<math> ET_{pot} = D\ A\ C_S </math>
 
 
 
where
 
:t = time over which ET is occurring (days);
 
:D = depth being considered (feet);
 
:A = area being considered (square feet); and
 
:C<sub>S</sub> = soil water available for ET, generally assumed to be the water between field capacity and wilting point.
 
 
 
ET is likely to be greater if one or more trees is planted in the swale. The MIDS calculator increases the above ET credit by a factor of 3 when a tree is planted in the swale, but this credit is not available for swales. See [[Plants for swales]] for information about trees that might acceptable in swales.
 
 
 
Provided soil water content is greater than the wilting point, ET will continually occur during the non-frozen period. However, because the above volume calculations are event based, t will be equal to the time between rain events. In the MIDS calculator, a value of 3 days is used because this is the average number of days between precipitation events.  ET will occur over the entire media depth. D may therefore be set equal to the media depth (D<sub>M</sub>). In this case, the value for A would be the average area through the entire depth of the media. The MIDS calculator limits ET to the area above the underdrain. If infiltration is being computed through the bottom and sidewalls of the basin, then C<sub>S</sub> would be field capacity minus the wilting point of soils (cubic feet per cubic foot) since water above the field capacity would infiltrate (or go to an underdrain).
 
 
 
The volume of water passing through underdrains can be determined by subtracting the volume loss (V) from the volume of water instantaneously captured by the BMP. No volume reduction credit is given for filtered stormwater that exits through the underdrain, but the volume of filtered water can be used in the calculation of pollutant removal credits through filtration.
 
 
 
The volume reduction credit (V) can be converted to an annual volume if desired. This conversion can be generated using the [[MIDS calculator|MIDS calculator]] or other appropriate modeling techniques. The MIDS calculator obtains the percentage annual volume reduction through [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Performance_curves_for_MIDS_calculator performance curves] developed from multiple modeling scenarios using the volume reduction capacity for swales, the infiltration rate of the underlying soils, and the contributing watershed size and imperviousness.
 
 
 
===Volume credit calculations - no check dam===
 
When a check dam is not incorporated into the design, water will infiltrate into the soil or media as it is conveyed along the swale. Volume credits for swales without check dams can be calculated using an appropriate model, such as the MIDS calculator or soil infiltration models (e.g. Green and Ampt).
 
<!--The following approach is utilized for calculating volumes in the MIDS calculator. The volume calculation for filtered stormwater (V<sub>F</sub>) of a dry swale is given by
 
 
 
<math> V_F = V_{SS} + V_{MC} </math>
 
 
 
where:
 
:V<sub>SS</sub> = volume of runoff filtered through swale side slope (ft<sup>3</sup>); and
 
:V<sub>MC</sub> =  volume of runoff filtered through swale main channel (ft<sup>3</sup>).
 
 
 
The event based volume filtered through the swale side slope (V<sub>SS</sub>) is given by
 
 
 
<math> V_{SS} = 43,560 * R_v * DA *R/12 </math>
 
 
 
where
 
:R<sub>V</sub> = site [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Introduction_to_stormwater_modeling#Curve_numbers runoff coefficient] based on a weighted average of area of land cover and associated runoff coefficient values;
 
:DA = Total drainage area to BMP (acres); and
 
:R = runoff depth (inches).
 
 
 
The event based volume filtered through the swale main channel (VF, MC) is then given by
 
 
 
<math> V_{MC} = 43,560 * R_v * DA * R/12 </math>
 
 
 
where
 
:R<sub>V</sub> = site [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Introduction_to_stormwater_modeling#Curve_numbers runoff coefficient] based on a weighted average of area of land cover and associated runoff coefficient values;
 
:DA = Total drainage area to BMP (acres); and
 
:R = runoff depth (inches).
 
 
 
The event based filter volume (VF) can be converted to an annual filter volume percentage (VA%) if the annual pollutant removal quantity is desired. This conversion can be generated using the MIDS calculator or other appropriate modeling techniques. The MIDS calculator obtains the percentage annual volume reduction through performance curves developed from multiple modeling scenarios using the volume reduction capacity of the BMP, the infiltration rate of the underlying soils, and the contributing watershed size and imperviousness. The annual volume reduction (V<sub>annual</sub>) credit is then given by
 
 
 
<math> V_{annual} = V_{(A%)} * V_{AR} </math>
 
 
 
where
 
:V<sub>Annual</sub> = Annual filtration volume credit (acre-ft;
 
:V<sub>A%</sub> = Annual filtration volume percentage. Value calculated using MIDS calculator or other appropriate modeling techniques using the filter volume (VF) calculated above;
 
:V_AR=Annual runoff volume (acre-ft)=(DA*P_j*P*R_V)/12;
 
:DA = Total drainage area to BMP (acre);
 
:P<sub>j</sub> = Annual rainfall correction factor. Fraction of annual rainfall events that produce runoff;
 
:P = Annual rainfall precipitation (inches); and
 
:R<sub>V</sub> = Site runoff coefficient. Weighted average of area of land cover and associated runoff coefficient values.-->
 
 
 
===Water quality credit calculations===
 
Water quality credits applied to dry swales can be calculated by rainfall event or annual rainfall. This value is obtained from the infiltration and filtration volume capacity of the BMP (calculated above).
 
 
 
====Total suspended solids====
 
TSS reduction credits correspond with volume reduction through infiltration and filtration of water captured by the swale and are given by
 
  
<math> M_{TSS} = M_{TSS_i} + M_{TSS_f} </math>
+
<math> M_{TSS} = M_{TSS_f} </math>
  
 
where
 
where
:M<sub>TSS</sub> = TSS removal (pounds);
+
:M<sub>TSS</sub> = TSS removal (pounds); and
:M<sub>TSS_i</sub> = TSS removal from infiltrated water (pounds); and
 
 
:M<sub>TSS_f</sub> = TSS removal from filtered water (pounds).
 
:M<sub>TSS_f</sub> = TSS removal from filtered water (pounds).
  
Pollutant removal for infiltrated water is assumed to be 100 percent. The event-based mass of pollutant removed through infiltration, in pounds, is given by
+
The event-based mass of pollutant removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by
 
 
*filtration (underdrain) - <math> M_{TSS_i} = 0.0000624\ (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U)\ EMC_{TSS} </math>
 
*infiltration - <math> M_{TSS_i} = 0.0000624\ V_{WQ}\ EMC_{TSS} </math>
 
 
 
where
 
:EMC<sub>TSS</sub> is the event mean TSS concentration in runoff water entering the BMP (milligrams per liter).
 
 
 
The EMC<sub>TSS</sub> entering the BMP is a function of the contributing land use and treatment by upstream tributary BMPs. For more information on EMC values for TSS, [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Total_Suspended_Solids_%28TSS%29_in_stormwater link here] or [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Event_mean_concentrations_by_land_use here].
 
  
Removal for the filtered portion is less than 100 percent. The event-based mass of pollutant removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by
+
<math> M_{TSS_f} = 0.0000624 V_{total} EMC_{TSS} R_{TSS} </math>
 
 
<math> M_{TSS_f} = 0.0000624\ (V_{total} - (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U))\ EMC_{TSS}\ R_{TSS} </math>
 
  
 
where
 
where
:V<sub>total</sub> is the total volume of water captured by the BMP (cubic feet); and
+
:V<sub>total</sub> is the total volume of water captured by the BMP (cubic feet);
 +
:EMC<sub>TSS</sub> is the event mean concentration (mg/L); and
 
:R<sub>TSS</sub> is the TSS pollutant removal percentage for filtered runoff.
 
:R<sub>TSS</sub> is the TSS pollutant removal percentage for filtered runoff.
  
The [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs Stormwater Manual] provides a recommended value for R<sub>TSS</sub> of 0.68 (68 percent) removal for filtered water. Alternate justified percentages for TSS removal can be used if proven to be applicable to the BMP design.
+
The [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs Stormwater Manual] provides a recommended value for R<sub>TSS</sub> of 0.35 (35 percent) removal for filtered water. Alternate justified percentages for TSS removal can be used if proven to be applicable to the BMP design.
  
 
The above calculations may be applied on an event or annual basis and are given by
 
The above calculations may be applied on an event or annual basis and are given by
Line 255: Line 108:
 
:V<sub>annual</sub> is the annual volume treated by the BMP, in acre-feet.
 
:V<sub>annual</sub> is the annual volume treated by the BMP, in acre-feet.
  
====Total phosphorus====
+
Water not captured by a check dam but conveyed in the swale are assigned a removal value of 0.20 (20 percent).
Total phosphorus (TP) reduction credits correspond with volume reduction through infiltration and filtration of water captured by the swale and are given by
 
 
 
<math> M_{TP} = M_{TP_i} + M_{TP_f} </math>
 
 
 
where
 
*M<sub>TP</sub> = TP removal (pounds);
 
*M<sub>TP_i</sub> = TP removal from infiltrated water (pounds); and
 
*M<sub>TP_f</sub> = TP removal from filtered water (pounds).
 
  
Pollutant removal for infiltrated water is assumed to be 100 percent. The mass of pollutant removed through infiltration, in pounds, is given by
+
==Total phosphorus==
 
+
Wet swales do not receive credit for phosphorus removal.
*filtration (underdrain) - <math> M_{TP_i} = 0.0000624\ (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U)\ EMC_{TP} </math>
 
*infiltration - <math> M_{TP_i} = 0.0000624\ V_{WQ} \ EMC_{TP} </math>
 
 
 
where
 
*EMC<sub>TP</sub> is the event mean TP concentration in runoff water entering the BMP (milligrams per liter).
 
 
 
The [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Event_mean_concentrations_by_land_use EMC<sub>TP</sub>] entering the BMP is a function of the contributing land use and treatment by upstream tributary BMPs.
 
 
 
The [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs filtration credit for TP] in a swale with underdrains assumes removal rates based on the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design_criteria_for_bioretention#Materials_specifications_-_filter_media soil media mix] used and the presence or absence of [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_amendments_to_enhance_phosphorus_sorption amendments]. Soil mixes with more than [[Design criteria for bioretention#Notes about soil phosphorus testing: applicability and interpretation|30 mg/kg phosphorus]] (P) content are likely to leach phosphorus and do not qualify for a water quality credit.  If the soil phosphorus concentration is less than 30 mg/kg, the mass of phosphorus removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by
 
 
 
<math> M_{TP_f} = 0.0000624\ (V_{total} - (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U))\ EMC_{TP}\ R_{TP} </math>
 
 
 
{{alert|Soil mixes [[Design criteria for bioretention#Mix C: North Carolina State University water quality blend|C]] and [[Design criteria for bioretention#Mix D|D]] are assumed to contain less than 30 mg/kg of phosphorus and therefore do not require testing|alert-info}}
 
 
 
Again, assuming the phosphorus content in the media is less than 30 milligrams per kilogram, the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Phosphorus_credits_for_bioretention_systems_with_an_underdrain removal efficiency (R<sub>TP</sub>) provided in the Stormwater Manual] is a function of the fraction of phosphorus that is in particulate or dissolved form, the depth of the media, and the presence or absence of soil amendments.  For the purpose of calculating credits it can be assumed that TP in storm water runoff consists of 55 percent particulate phosphorus (PP) and 45 percent dissolved phosphorus (DP). The removal efficiency for particulate phosphorus is 80 percent. The removal efficiency for dissolved phosphorus is 20 percent if the media depth is 2 feet or greater. The efficiency decreases by 1 percent for each 0.1 foot decrease in media thickness below 2 feet. If a soil amendment is added to the BMP design, an additional 40 percent credit is applied to dissolved phosphorus. Thus, the overall removal efficiency, (R<sub>TP</sub>), expressed as a percent removal of total phosphorus, is given by
 
 
 
<math> R_{TP} = (0.8 * 0.55) + (0.45 * ((0.2 * (D_{MU_{max=2}})/2) + 0.40_{if amendment is used})) * 100 </math>
 
 
 
where
 
*the first term on the right side of the equation represents the removal of particulate phosphorus;
 
*the second term on the right side of the equation represents the removal of dissolved phosphorus; and
 
*D<sub>MU<sub>max=2</sub></sub> = the media depth above the underdrain, up to a maximum of 2 feet.
 
  
 
==Methods for calculating credits==
 
==Methods for calculating credits==
This section provides specific information on generating and calculating credits from swale BMPS for volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP). Stormwater runoff volume and pollution reductions (“credits”) may be calculated using one of the following methods:
+
This section provides specific information on generating and calculating credits from swale BMPs for Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Pollution reductions (“credits”) may be calculated using one of the following methods:
*Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Available_stormwater_models_and_selecting_a_model accepted hydrologic models]
+
*Quantifying pollution reductions based on [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Available_stormwater_models_and_selecting_a_model accepted hydrologic models]
*[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=The_Simple_Method_for_estimating_phosphorus_export The Simple Method] and [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Guidance_and_examples_for_using_the_MPCA_Estimator MPCA Estimator]
 
 
*[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_calculator MIDS Calculator]
 
*[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_calculator MIDS Calculator]
*Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on values reported in literature
+
*Quantifying pollution reductions based on values reported in literature
*Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on field monitoring
+
*Quantifying pollution reductions based on field monitoring
  
 
===Credits based on models===
 
===Credits based on models===
Users may opt to use a water quality model or calculator to compute volume, TSS and/or TP pollutant removal for the purpose of determining credits for dry swales. The available models described in the following sections are commonly used by water resource professionals, but are not explicitly endorsed or required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  
+
{{alert|The model selected depends on your objectives. For compliance with the Construction Stormwater permit, the model must be based on the assumption that an instantaneous volume is captured by the BMP.|alert-danger}}
 +
 
 +
Users may opt to use a water quality model or calculator to compute TSS pollutant removal for the purpose of determining credits for wet swales. The available models described in the following sections are commonly used by water resource professionals, but are not explicitly endorsed or required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  
  
 
Use of models or calculators for the purpose of computing pollutant removal credits should be supported by detailed documentation, including:
 
Use of models or calculators for the purpose of computing pollutant removal credits should be supported by detailed documentation, including:
Line 315: Line 139:
 
===MIDS Calculator===
 
===MIDS Calculator===
  
Users should refer to the [[MIDS calculator|MIDS Calculator]] section of the WIKI for additional information and guidance on credit calculation using this approach.
+
Users should refer to the [[MIDS calculator|MIDS Calculator]] section of the WIKI for additional information and guidance on credit calculation using this approach. NOTE: The MIDS calculator does not allow the user to incorporate check dams into the design.
  
 
===Credits Based on Reported Literature Values===
 
===Credits Based on Reported Literature Values===
 
+
A simplified approach to computing a credit would be to apply a reduction value found in literature to the pollutant mass load or event mean concentration (EMC) of the wet swale.  A more detailed explanation of the differences between mass load reductions and EMC reductions can be found [[Information on pollutant removal by BMPs|here]].
A simplified approach to computing a credit would be to apply a reduction value found in literature to the pollutant mass load or event mean concentration (EMC) of the dry swale.  A more detailed explanation of the differences between mass load reductions and EMC reductions can be found [[Information on pollutant removal by BMPs|here]].
 
  
 
Designers may use the pollutant reduction values reported [[Information on pollutant removal by BMPs|here]] or may research values from other databases and published literature.   
 
Designers may use the pollutant reduction values reported [[Information on pollutant removal by BMPs|here]] or may research values from other databases and published literature.   
  
 
Designers who opt for this approach should:
 
Designers who opt for this approach should:
*Select the median value from pollutant reduction databases that report a range of reductions, such as from the [http://bmpdatabase.org/index.htm International BMP Database].   
+
*Select the median value from pollutant reduction databases that report a range of reductions, such as from the [https://bmpdatabase.org/ International BMP Database].   
*Select a pollutant removal reduction from literature that studied a dry swale device with site characteristics and climate similar to the device being considered for credits.
+
*Select a pollutant removal reduction from literature that studied a wet swale device with site characteristics and climate similar to the device being considered for credits.
*When using data from an individual study, review the article to determine that the design principles of the studied dry swale are close to the design recommendations for Minnesota, as described [[Bioretention - bioinfiltration |here]], and/or by a local permitting agency.
+
*When using data from an individual study, review the article to determine that the design principles of the studied wet swale are close to the design recommendations for Minnesota, as described [[Bioretention - bioinfiltration |here]], and/or by a local permitting agency.
 
*Preference should be given to literature that has been published in a peer-reviewed publication.
 
*Preference should be given to literature that has been published in a peer-reviewed publication.
  
The following references summarize pollutant reduction values from multiple studies or sources that could be used to determine credits. Users should note that there is a wide range of monitored pollutant removal effectiveness in the literature. Before selecting a literature value, users should compare the characteristics of the monitored site in the literature against the characteristics of the proposed dry swale, considering such conditions as watershed characteristics, swale sizing, and climate factors.  
+
The following references summarize pollutant reduction values from multiple studies or sources that could be used to determine credits. Users should note that there is a wide range of monitored pollutant removal effectiveness in the literature. Before selecting a literature value, users should compare the characteristics of the monitored site in the literature against the characteristics of the proposed wet swale, considering such conditions as watershed characteristics, swale sizing, and climate factors.  
  
*[http://bmpdatabase.org/Docs/2012%20Water%20Quality%20Analysis%20Addendum/BMP%20Database%20Categorical_SummaryAddendumReport_Final.pdf International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals]
+
*[https://bmpdatabase.org/ International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals]
 
**Compilation of BMP performance studies published through 2011
 
**Compilation of BMP performance studies published through 2011
 
**Provides values for TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals
 
**Provides values for TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals
 
**Applicable to grass strips, bioretention, bioswales, detention basins, green roofs, manufactured devices, media filters, porous pavements, wetland basins, and wetland channels
 
**Applicable to grass strips, bioretention, bioswales, detention basins, green roofs, manufactured devices, media filters, porous pavements, wetland basins, and wetland channels
 
+
*[http://lshs.tamu.edu/docs/lshs/end-notes/updated%20bmp%20removal%20efficiencies%20from%20the%20national%20pollutant%20re-2854375963/updated%20bmp%20removal%20efficiencies%20from%20the%20national%20pollutant%20removal%20database.pdf Updated BMP Removal Efficiencies from the National Pollutant Removal Database (2007) & Acceptable BMP Table for Virginia]
*[https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/133994 Effectiveness Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management in Portland, Oregon]
+
**Provides data for several structural and non-structural BMP performance evaluations
**Appendix M contains Excel spreadsheet of structural and non-structural BMP performance evaluations
 
**Provides values for sediment, nutrients, pathogens, metals, quantity, air purification, carbon sequestration, flood storage, avian habitat, aquatics habitat and aesthetics
 
**Applicable to Filters, Wet Ponds, Porous Pavements, Soakage Trenches, Flow through Stormwater Planters, Infiltration Stormwater Planters, Vegetated Infiltration Basins, Swales, and Treatment Wetlands
 
 
*[http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/docs/draft-final-report.pdf The Illinois Green Infrastructure Study]
 
*[http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/docs/draft-final-report.pdf The Illinois Green Infrastructure Study]
 
**Figure ES-1 summarizes BMP effectiveness
 
**Figure ES-1 summarizes BMP effectiveness
 
**Provides values for TN, TSS, peak flows / runoff volumes
 
**Provides values for TN, TSS, peak flows / runoff volumes
 
**Applicable to Permeable Pavements, Constructed Wetlands, Infiltration, Detention, Filtration, and Green Roofs
 
**Applicable to Permeable Pavements, Constructed Wetlands, Infiltration, Detention, Filtration, and Green Roofs
* [http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/stormwater/manual.htm New Hampshire Stormwater Manual]
+
* [https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt341/files/documents/2020-01/wd-08-20b.pdf New Hampshire Stormwater Manual]
 
**Volume 2, Appendix B summarizes BMP effectiveness
 
**Volume 2, Appendix B summarizes BMP effectiveness
 
**Provides values for TSS, TN, and TP removal
 
**Provides values for TSS, TN, and TP removal
 
**Applicable to basins and wetlands, stormwater wetlands, infiltration practices, filtering practices, treatment swales, vegetated buffers, and pre-treatment practices
 
**Applicable to basins and wetlands, stormwater wetlands, infiltration practices, filtering practices, treatment swales, vegetated buffers, and pre-treatment practices
*[http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/BMP-Performance-Analysis-Report.pdf BMP Performance Analysis].  Prepared for US EPA Region 1, Boston MA.
+
*[https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/tools/BMP-Performance-Analysis-Report.pdf BMP Performance Analysis].  Prepared for US EPA Region 1, Boston MA.  
 
**Appendix B provides pollutant removal performance curves
 
**Appendix B provides pollutant removal performance curves
**Provides values for TP, TSS, and Zn
+
**Provides values for TP, TSS, and zinc
 
**Pollutant removal broken down according to land use
 
**Pollutant removal broken down according to land use
**Applicable to Infiltration Trench, Infiltration Basin, Bioretention, Grass Swale, Wet Pond, and Porous Pavement
+
**Applicable to infiltration trench, infiltration basin, bioretention, grass swale, wet pond, and porous pavement
 
*Weiss, P.T., J.S. Gulliver and A.J. Erickson. 2005. [http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/200523.pdf The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices: Final Report]
 
*Weiss, P.T., J.S. Gulliver and A.J. Erickson. 2005. [http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/200523.pdf The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices: Final Report]
 
**Table 8 and Appendix B provides pollutant removal efficiencies for TSS and P
 
**Table 8 and Appendix B provides pollutant removal efficiencies for TSS and P
Line 358: Line 178:
  
 
===Credits Based on Field Monitoring===
 
===Credits Based on Field Monitoring===
Field monitoring may be used to calculate stormwater credits in lieu of desktop calculations or models/calculators as described.  Careful planning is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED before commencing a program to monitor the performance of a BMP.  The general steps involved in planning and implementing BMP monitoring include the following.
+
Field monitoring may be made in lieu of desktop calculations or models/calculators as described.  Careful planning is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED before commencing a program to monitor the performance of a BMP.  The general steps involved in planning and implementing BMP monitoring include the following.
#Establish the objectives and goals of the monitoring.
+
 
 +
#Establish the objectives and goals of the monitoring. When monitoring BMP performance, typical objectives may include the following.
 
##Which pollutants will be measured?
 
##Which pollutants will be measured?
 
##Will the monitoring study the performance of a single BMP or multiple BMPs?
 
##Will the monitoring study the performance of a single BMP or multiple BMPs?
Line 365: Line 186:
 
##Will the results be compared to other BMP performance studies?
 
##Will the results be compared to other BMP performance studies?
 
##What should be the duration of the monitoring period?  Is there a need to look at the annual performance vs the performance during a single rain event?  Is there a need to assess the seasonal variation of BMP performance?
 
##What should be the duration of the monitoring period?  Is there a need to look at the annual performance vs the performance during a single rain event?  Is there a need to assess the seasonal variation of BMP performance?
#Plan the field activities.  Field considerations include:
+
#Plan the field activities.  Field considerations include
##Equipment selection and placement
+
##equipment selection and placement;
##Sampling protocols including selection, storage, delivery to the laboratory
+
##sampling protocols including selection, storage, and delivery to the laboratory;
##Laboratory services
+
##laboratory services;
##Health and Safety plans for field personnel
+
##health and Safety plans for field personnel;
##Record keeping protocols and forms
+
##record keeping protocols and forms; and
##Quality control and quality assurance protocols
+
##quality control and quality assurance protocols
 
#Execute the field monitoring
 
#Execute the field monitoring
 
#Analyze the results
 
#Analyze the results
 +
 +
This manual contains the following guidance for monitoring.
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing lake monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing stream monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing major stormwater outfall monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing stormwater best management practice monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
  
 
The following guidance manuals have been developed to assist BMP owners and operators on how to plan and implement BMP performance monitoring.
 
The following guidance manuals have been developed to assist BMP owners and operators on how to plan and implement BMP performance monitoring.
:[http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/monitor.cfm '''Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring''']
+
 
Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers prepared this guide in 2009 with support from the USEPA, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Environment and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  This guide was developed to improve and standardize the protocols for all BMP monitoring and to provide additional guidance for Low Impact Development (LID) BMP monitoring.
+
:[https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/montcomplete.pdf '''Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring''']
Highlighted chapters in this manual include:
+
Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers prepared this guide in 2009 with support from the USEPA, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Environment and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  This guide was developed to improve and standardize the protocols for all BMP monitoring and to provide additional guidance for Low Impact Development (LID) BMP monitoring. Highlighted chapters in this manual include:
*Chapter 2: Designing the Program
+
*Chapter 2: Developing a monitoring plan. Describes a seven-step approach for developing a monitoring plan for collection of data to evaluate BMP effectiveness.
*Chapters 3 & 4: Methods and Equipment
+
*Chapter 3: Methods and Equipment for hydrologic and hydraulic monitoring
*Chapters 5 & 6: Implementation, Data Management, Evaluation and Reporting
+
*Chapter 4: Methods and equipment for water quality monitoring
 +
*Chapters 5 (Implementation) and 6 (Data Management, Evaluation and Reporting)
 
*Chapter 7: BMP Performance Analysis
 
*Chapter 7: BMP Performance Analysis
*Chapters 8, 9, & 10: LID Monitoring
+
*Chapters 8 (LID Monitoring), 9 (LID data interpretation]), and 10 (Case studies).
  
 
:[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf '''Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control (NCHRP Report 565)''']
 
:[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf '''Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control (NCHRP Report 565)''']
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) sponsored this 2006 research report, which was authored by Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, the University of Florida, and the Low Impact Development Center.  The primary purpose of this report is to advise on the selection and design of BMPs that are best suited for highway runoff.  The document includes the following chapters on performance monitoring that may be a useful reference for BMP performance monitoring, especially for the performance assessment of a highway BMP:
+
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) sponsored this 2006 research report, which was authored by Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, the University of Florida, and the Low Impact Development Center.  The primary purpose of this report is to advise on the selection and design of BMPs that are best suited for highway runoff.  The document includes chapters on performance monitoring that may be a useful reference for BMP performance monitoring, especially for the performance assessment of a highway BMP.
 
*Chapter 4: Stormwater Characterization
 
*Chapter 4: Stormwater Characterization
 
**4.2: General Characteristics and Pollutant Sources
 
**4.2: General Characteristics and Pollutant Sources
Line 395: Line 224:
 
**8.6: Overall Hydrologic and Water Quality Performance Evaluation
 
**8.6: Overall Hydrologic and Water Quality Performance Evaluation
 
*Chapter 10: Hydrologic Evaluation
 
*Chapter 10: Hydrologic Evaluation
**10.5: Performance Verification and Design Optimization  
+
**10.5: Performance Verification and Design Optimization
  
:[http://wefstormwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/WEF-STEPP-White-Paper_Final_02-06-142.pdf '''Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices'''].
+
:[https://www.wef.org/globalassets/assets-wef/3---resources/topics/o-z/stormwater/stormwater-institute/wef-stepp-white-paper_final_02-06-14.pdf '''Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices''']
In 2014 the Water Environment Federation released this White Paper that investigates the feasibility of a national program for the testing of stormwater products and practices. The information contained in this White Paper would be of use to those considering the monitoring of a manufactured BMP.  The report does not include any specific guidance on the monitoring of a BMP, but it does include a summary of the existing technical evaluation programs that could be consulted for testing results for specific products (see Table 1 on page 8).
+
*In 2014 the Water Environment Federation released this White Paper that investigates the feasibility of a national program for the testing of stormwater products and practices. The report does not include any specific guidance on the monitoring of a BMP, but it does include a summary of the existing technical evaluation programs that could be consulted for testing results for specific products (see Table 1 on page 8).
  
:[http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW_OT_13_999.pdf '''Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual (Document No. CTSW-OT-13-999.43.01''')]
+
:'''Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual (Document No. CTSW-OT-13-999.43.01)''']
The most current version of this manual was released by the State of California, Department of Transportation in November 2013.  As with the other monitoring manuals described, this manual does include guidance on planning a stormwater monitoring program.  However, this manual is among the most thorough for field activities.  Relevant chapters include:
+
 
 +
The most current version of this manual was released by the State of California, Department of Transportation in November 2013.  As with the other monitoring manuals described, this manual does include guidance on planning a stormwater monitoring program.  However, this manual is among the most thorough for field activities.  Relevant chapters include.
 
*Chapter 4: Monitoring Methods and Equipment
 
*Chapter 4: Monitoring Methods and Equipment
 
*Chapter 5: Analytical Methods and Laboratory Selection
 
*Chapter 5: Analytical Methods and Laboratory Selection
Line 413: Line 243:
  
 
:[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/ '''Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: A Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance''']
 
:[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/ '''Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: A Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance''']
This online manual was developed in 2010 by Andrew Erickson, Peter Weiss, and John Gulliver from the University of Minnesota and St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory with funding provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  The manual advises on a four-level process to assess the performance of a Best Management Practice, involving:
+
 
*Level 1: Visual Inspection
+
This online manual was developed in 2010 by Andrew Erickson, Peter Weiss, and John Gulliver from the University of Minnesota and St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory with funding provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  The manual advises on a four-level process to assess the performance of a Best Management Practice.
*Level 2: Capacity Testing
+
*Level 1: [https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/visual-inspection Visual Inspection]
*Level 3: Synthetic Runoff Testing
+
*Level 2: [https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/capacity-testing Capacity Testing]
*Level 4: Monitoring
+
*Level 3: [http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/synthetic-runoff-testing Synthetic Runoff Testing]
*Level 1 activities do not produce numerical performance data that could be used to obtain a stormwater management credit.  BMP owners and operators who are interested in using data obtained from Levels 2 and 3 should consult with the MPCA or other regulatory agency to determine if the results are appropriate for credit calculations.  Level 4, Monitoring, is the method most frequently used for assessment of the performance of a BMP.
+
*Level 4: [https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/monitoring Monitoring]
 +
 
 +
Level 1 activities do not produce numerical performance data that could be used to obtain a stormwater management credit.  BMP owners and operators who are interested in using data obtained from Levels 2 and 3 should consult with the MPCA or other regulatory agency to determine if the results are appropriate for credit calculations.  Level 4, Monitoring, is the method most frequently used for assessment of the performance of a BMP.
  
 
Use these links to obtain detailed information on the following topics related to BMP performance monitoring:
 
Use these links to obtain detailed information on the following topics related to BMP performance monitoring:
*[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/developing-assessment-program/water-budget-measurement Water Budget Measurement]
+
*[https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/water-budget-measurement Water Budget Measurement]
*[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/developing-assessment-program/sampling-methods Sampling Methods]
+
*[https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/sampling-methods Sampling Methods]
*[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/developing-assessment-program/analysis-water-and-soils Analysis of Water and Soils]
+
*[https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/analysis-water-and-soils Analysis of Water and Soils]
*[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/data-analysis Data Analysis for Monitoring]
+
*[https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/data-analysis Data Analysis for Monitoring]
  
 
==Other pollutants==
 
==Other pollutants==
According to the [http://bmpdatabase.org/index.htm International BMP Database], studies have shown dry swales are effective at reducing concentration of other pollutants as well including solids, bacteria, metals, and nutrients. This database provides an overview of BMP performance in relation to various pollutant categories and constituents that were monitored in BMP studies within the database. The report notes that effectiveness and range of unit treatment processes can vary greatly depending on BMP design and location. Table 3-4 shows a list of the constituents and associated pollutant category for the monitored “media filters” data. The constituents shown all had data representing decreases in effluent pollutant loads for the median of the data points and the 95% confidence interval about the median. If dry swale design utilizes a bioretention base, additional pollutant removals may be applicable as well (For more information see the bioretention credit article ). [[Pollutant removal percentages for filtration BMPs|Pollutant removal percentages]] for dry swale BMPs can also be found on the WIKI page.
+
According to the [http://bmpdatabase.org/index.htm International BMP Database], studies have shown wet swales are somewhat effective at reducing concentrations of bacteria, metals, and nitrogen. This database provides an overview of BMP performance in relation to various pollutant categories and constituents that were monitored in BMP studies within the database. The report notes that effectiveness and range of unit treatment processes can vary greatly depending on BMP design and location. The following table shows a list of the constituents and associated pollutant category for the monitored “media filters” data. The constituents shown all had data representing decreases in effluent pollutant loads for the median of the data points and the 95% confidence interval about the median.
  
{{:Dry swale pollutant load reduction}}
+
{{:Wet swale pollutant load reduction}}
 
 
<sup>1</sup>Results are for total metals only
 
 
 
<sup>2</sup>Information on As was found only in the International Stormwater Database where removal was found to be low
 
  
 
==References and suggested reading==
 
==References and suggested reading==
Line 466: Line 294:
 
<noinclude>
 
<noinclude>
 
==Related articles==
 
==Related articles==
*Dry swales
+
*Wet swales
**[[Terminology for swales|Terminology for swales (grass channels)]]
+
**[[Terminology for swales]]
**[[Overview for dry swale (grass swale)]]
+
**[[Overview for wet swale (wetland channel)]]
**[[BMPs for stormwater infiltration|Types of infiltration]]
 
 
**[[BMPs for stormwater filtration|Types of filtration]]
 
**[[BMPs for stormwater filtration|Types of filtration]]
**[[Design criteria for dry swale (grass swale)]]
+
**[[Design criteria for wet swale (wetland channel)]]
**[[Construction specifications for dry swale (grass swale)]]  
+
**[[Construction specifications for wet swale (wetland channel)]]  
**[[Operation and maintenance of dry swale (grass swale)]]
+
**[[Operation and maintenance of wet swale (wetland channel)]]
**[[Assessing the performance of dry swale (grass swale)]]
+
**[[Assessing the performance of wet swale (wetland channel)]]
**[[Calculating credits for dry swale (grass swale)]]
 
**[[Cost considerations for dry swale (grass swale)]]
 
**[[Case studies for dry swale (grass swale)]]
 
 
**[[Plants for swales]]
 
**[[Plants for swales]]
 
**[[Check dams for stormwater swales]]
 
**[[Check dams for stormwater swales]]
**[[External resources for swales|External resources for dry swale (grass swale)]]
+
**[[Calculating credits for wet swale (wetland channel)]]
**[[References for dry swale (grass swale)]]
+
**[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Cost_considerations_for_dry_swale_(grass_swale) Cost considerations]
**[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Requirements,_recommendations_and_information_for_using_swale_without_an_underdrain_as_a_BMP_in_the_MIDS_calculator Requirements, recommendations and information for using dry swale (grass swale) without an underdrain in the MIDS calculator]
+
**[[External resources for wet swale (wetland channel)]]
**[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Requirements,_recommendations_and_information_for_using_swale_with_an_underdrain_as_a_BMP_in_the_MIDS_calculator Requirements, recommendations and information for using dry swale (grass swale) with an underdrain in the MIDS calculator]
+
**[[References for dry swale (grass sawale)|References for wet swale (wetland channel)]]
 +
**[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Requirements,_recommendations_and_information_for_using_wet_swale_as_a_BMP_in_the_MIDS_calculator Requirements, recommendations and information for using wet swale in the MIDS calculator]
 
**[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using swale side slope as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]]
 
**[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using swale side slope as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]]
 
*Calculating credits
 
*Calculating credits
Line 495: Line 320:
 
**[[Calculating credits for stormwater wetlands]]
 
**[[Calculating credits for stormwater wetlands]]
 
**[[Calculating credits for iron enhanced sand filter]]
 
**[[Calculating credits for iron enhanced sand filter]]
**[[Calculating credits for swale]]
+
**[[Calculating credits for dry swale (grass swale)]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for wet swale (wetland channel)]]
 
**[[Calculating credits for tree trenches and tree boxes]]
 
**[[Calculating credits for tree trenches and tree boxes]]
 
**[[Calculating credits for stormwater and rainwater harvest and use/reuse]]
 
**[[Calculating credits for stormwater and rainwater harvest and use/reuse]]
  
[[category:Calculating credits]]
+
[[Category:Level 3 - Best management practices/Guidance and information/Pollutant removal and credits]]
 +
[[Category:Level 3 - Best management practices/Structural practices/Wet swale]]
 +
[[Category:Level 2 - Pollutants/Pollutant removal]]
 
</noinclude>
 
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 22:22, 23 November 2022

Recommended pollutant removal efficiencies, in percent, for wet swale BMPs. Sources. NOTE: removal efficiencies are 100 percent for water that is infiltrated.

TSS=total suspended solids; TP=total phosphorus; PP=particulate phosphorus; DP=dissolved phosphorus; TN=total nitrogen

TSS TP PP DP TN Metals2 Bacteria3 Hydrocarbons
35/201 0 0 0 154 35 35 ND5
1 35 percent credit if a check dam is employed; 20 percent credit if no check dam is employed; 2 Value represents the median removal for total Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn using data from the International Stormwater BMP database (2016 summaries); removal for dissolved metal is 0; 3 Data from the International Stormwater BMP database, 2016, for fecal coliform bacteria; 4 From the International Stormwater BMP database, 2016, for total nitrogen; 5 No data found.
image
Warning: Models are often selected to calculate credits. The model selected depends on your objectives. For compliance with the Construction Stormwater permit, the model must be based on the assumption that an instantaneous volume is captured by the BMP.
Green Infrastructure: Swales can be an important tool for retention and detention of stormwater runoff. Depending on design and construction, swales may provide additional benefits, including cleaner air, carbon sequestration, improved biological habitat, and aesthetic value. See the section Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) and sustainable stormwater management.

Credit refers to the quantity of stormwater or pollutant reduction achieved either by an individual best management practice (BMP) or cumulatively with multiple BMPs. Stormwater credits are a tool for local stormwater authorities who are interested in

This page provides a discussion of how wet swales can achieve stormwater credits.

Overview

A wet swale acts as a very long and linear shallow biofiltration or linear stormwater wetland system. Wet swales do not provide volume reduction and have limited treatment capability. Incorporation of check dams into the design allows treatment of a portion or all of the Water Quality Volume within a series of cells created by the check dams. Wet swales planted with emergent wetland plant species provide improved pollutant removal. Wet swales may be used as pretreatment practices. Wet swales are commonly used for drainage areas less than 5 acres in size.

Pollutant Removal Mechanisms

Wet swales without check dams primarily remove pollutants through filtration during conveyance of stormwater runoff. Wet swales do not achieve significant volume reduction. Check dams may be incorporated into wet swale design to enhance settling and filtration of solids.

Location in the Treatment Train

Wet swales provide limited water quality treatment and no volume control and are not recommended practices unless options for other BMPs are limited. Wet swales do however, provide additional Green infrastructure benefits because they are vegetated.

Wet swales are designed primarily as in-line systems for stormwater quality and typically are used in conjunction with other structural controls in stormwater treatment trains. Wet swales may be used at various locations within a treatment train] and can be used for pretreatment, conveyance, and/or primary treatment.

Methodology for calculating credits

This section describes the basic concepts and equations used to calculate credits for Total Suspended Solids (TSS).

Wet swale practices generate credits for TSS. Wet swale practices are moderately effective at reducing concentrations of metals. They are somewhat effective at removing bacteria. This article does not provide information on calculating credits for pollutants other than TSS, but references are provided that may be useful for calculating credits for other pollutants.

Assumptions and Approach

In developing the credit calculations, it is assumed the swale is properly designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. If any of these assumptions is not valid, the BMP may not qualify for credits or credits should be reduced based on reduced ability of the BMP to achieve volume or pollutant reductions. For guidance on design, construction, and maintenance, see the appropriate article within the Manual.

Warning: Pretreatment is required for all filtration and infiltration practices

Unlike other BMPs such as bioretention and permeable pavement, credits for swales are calculated in two ways. First, if check dams are incorporated into the design, the water quality volume (VWQ) is assumed to be delivered as an instantaneous volume to the BMP and stored as water ponded behind the check dam, above the soil or filter media, and below the overflow point of the check dam. VWQ can vary depending on the stormwater management objective(s). For construction stormwater, VWQ is 1 inch times new impervious surface area. For MIDS, the VWQ is 1.1 inches times impervious surface area.

Second, if check dams are not incorporated into the swale, water will be filtered as it is conveyed along the swale. Some settling also occurs as the water is conveyed. The extent of filtration is a function of the channel roughness, including vegetation effects, and the slope of the swale, which affects the velocity of the water and thus settling.

Total suspended solids

schematic of swale with check dams
Profile of swale with structural check dams (not to scale). Source: Virginia DOT BMP Design Manual, Chapter 6. Click on image to enlarge.

The water quality volume (Vwq) achieved behind each check dam (instantaneous volume), in cubic feet, is given by

\( V_{wq} = 1728 h^2 * (h * H + B_w)]/(2S) \)

where

h = check dam height (inches)
H = horizontal component of the swale side slope (1 vertical : H horizontal)(inches)
S = slope (unitless); and
Bw = channel bottom width (inches)

Add the Vwq for each check dam together to obtain the cumulative water quality volume for the swale.

TSS reduction credits correspond with the volume captured by swale check dams and is given by

\( M_{TSS} = M_{TSS_f} \)

where

MTSS = TSS removal (pounds); and
MTSS_f = TSS removal from filtered water (pounds).

The event-based mass of pollutant removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by

\( M_{TSS_f} = 0.0000624 V_{total} EMC_{TSS} R_{TSS} \)

where

Vtotal is the total volume of water captured by the BMP (cubic feet);
EMCTSS is the event mean concentration (mg/L); and
RTSS is the TSS pollutant removal percentage for filtered runoff.

The Stormwater Manual provides a recommended value for RTSS of 0.35 (35 percent) removal for filtered water. Alternate justified percentages for TSS removal can be used if proven to be applicable to the BMP design.

The above calculations may be applied on an event or annual basis and are given by

\( M_{TSS_f} = 2.72\ F\ V_{F_{annual}}\ EMC_{TSS}\ R_{TSS} \)

where

F is the fraction of annual volume filtered through the BMP; and
Vannual is the annual volume treated by the BMP, in acre-feet.

Water not captured by a check dam but conveyed in the swale are assigned a removal value of 0.20 (20 percent).

Total phosphorus

Wet swales do not receive credit for phosphorus removal.

Methods for calculating credits

This section provides specific information on generating and calculating credits from swale BMPs for Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Pollution reductions (“credits”) may be calculated using one of the following methods:

  • Quantifying pollution reductions based on accepted hydrologic models
  • MIDS Calculator
  • Quantifying pollution reductions based on values reported in literature
  • Quantifying pollution reductions based on field monitoring

Credits based on models

Warning: The model selected depends on your objectives. For compliance with the Construction Stormwater permit, the model must be based on the assumption that an instantaneous volume is captured by the BMP.

Users may opt to use a water quality model or calculator to compute TSS pollutant removal for the purpose of determining credits for wet swales. The available models described in the following sections are commonly used by water resource professionals, but are not explicitly endorsed or required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Use of models or calculators for the purpose of computing pollutant removal credits should be supported by detailed documentation, including:

  1. Model name and version
  2. Date of analysis
  3. Person or organization conducting analysis
  4. Detailed summary of input data
  5. Calibration and verification information
  6. Detailed summary of output data

The following table lists water quantity and water quality models that are commonly used by water resource professionals to predict the hydrologic, hydraulic, and/or pollutant removal capabilities of a single or multiple stormwater BMPs. The table can be used to guide a user in selecting the most appropriate model for computing volume, TSS, and/or TP removal for constructed basin BMPs. In using this table to identify models appropriate for constructed ponds and wetlands, use the sort arrow on the table and sort by Constructed Basin BMPs. Models identified with an X may be appropriate for using with constructed basins.

Comparison of stormwater models and calculators. Additional information and descriptions for some of the models listed in this table can be found at this link. Note that the Construction Stormwater General Permit requires the water quality volume to be calculated as an instantaneous volume, meaning several of these models cannot be used to determine compliance with the permit.
Link to this table
Access this table as a Microsoft Word document: File:Stormwater Model and Calculator Comparisons table.docx.

Model name BMP Category Assess TP removal? Assess TSS removal? Assess volume reduction? Comments
Constructed basin BMPs Filter BMPs Infiltrator BMPs Swale or strip BMPs Reuse Manu-
factured devices
Center for Neighborhood Technology Green Values National Stormwater Management Calculator X X X X No No Yes Does not compute volume reduction for some BMPs, including cisterns and tree trenches.
CivilStorm Yes Yes Yes CivilStorm has an engineering library with many different types of BMPs to choose from. This list changes as new information becomes available.
EPA National Stormwater Calculator X X X No No Yes Primary purpose is to assess reductions in stormwater volume.
EPA SWMM X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.
HydroCAD X X X No No Yes Will assess hydraulics, volumes, and pollutant loading, but not pollutant reduction.
infoSWMM X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.
infoWorks ICM X X X X Yes Yes Yes
i-Tree-Hydro X No No Yes Includes simple calculator for rain gardens.
i-Tree-Streets No No Yes Computes volume reduction for trees, only.
LSPC X X X Yes Yes Yes Though developed for HSPF, the USEPA BMP Web Toolkit can be used with LSPC to model structural BMPs such as detention basins, or infiltration BMPs that represent source control facilities, which capture runoff from small impervious areas (e.g., parking lots or rooftops).
MapShed X X X X Yes Yes Yes Region-specific input data not available for Minnesota but user can create this data for any region.
MCWD/MWMO Stormwater Reuse Calculator X Yes No Yes Computes storage volume for stormwater reuse systems
Metropolitan Council Stormwater Reuse Guide Excel Spreadsheet X No No Yes Computes storage volume for stormwater reuse systems. Uses 30-year precipitation data specific to Twin Cites region of Minnesota.
MIDS Calculator X X X X X X Yes Yes Yes Includes user-defined feature that can be used for manufactured devices and other BMPs.
MIKE URBAN (SWMM or MOUSE) X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.
P8 X X X X Yes Yes Yes
PCSWMM X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.
PLOAD X X X X X Yes Yes No User-defined practices with user-specified removal percentages.
PondNet X Yes No Yes Flow and phosphorus routing in pond networks.
PondPack X [ No No Yes PondPack can calculate first-flush volume, but does not model pollutants. It can be used to calculate pond infiltration.
RECARGA X No No Yes
SHSAM X No Yes No Several flow-through structures including standard sumps, and proprietary systems such as CDS, Stormceptors, and Vortechs systems
SUSTAIN X X X X X Yes Yes Yes Categorizes BMPs into Point BMPs, Linear BMPs, and Area BMPs
SWAT X X X Yes Yes Yes Model offers many agricultural BMPs and practices, but limited urban BMPs at this time.
Virginia Runoff Reduction Method X X X X X X Yes No Yes Users input Event Mean Concentration (EMC) pollutant removal percentages for manufactured devices.
WARMF X X Yes Yes Yes Includes agriculture BMP assessment tools. Compatible with USEPA Basins
WinHSPF X X X Yes Yes Yes USEPA BMP Web Toolkit available to assist with implementing structural BMPs such as detention basins, or infiltration BMPs that represent source control facilities, which capture runoff from small impervious areas (e.g., parking lots or rooftops).
WinSLAMM X X X X Yes Yes Yes
XPSWMM X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.


MIDS Calculator

Users should refer to the MIDS Calculator section of the WIKI for additional information and guidance on credit calculation using this approach. NOTE: The MIDS calculator does not allow the user to incorporate check dams into the design.

Credits Based on Reported Literature Values

A simplified approach to computing a credit would be to apply a reduction value found in literature to the pollutant mass load or event mean concentration (EMC) of the wet swale. A more detailed explanation of the differences between mass load reductions and EMC reductions can be found here.

Designers may use the pollutant reduction values reported here or may research values from other databases and published literature.

Designers who opt for this approach should:

  • Select the median value from pollutant reduction databases that report a range of reductions, such as from the International BMP Database.
  • Select a pollutant removal reduction from literature that studied a wet swale device with site characteristics and climate similar to the device being considered for credits.
  • When using data from an individual study, review the article to determine that the design principles of the studied wet swale are close to the design recommendations for Minnesota, as described here, and/or by a local permitting agency.
  • Preference should be given to literature that has been published in a peer-reviewed publication.

The following references summarize pollutant reduction values from multiple studies or sources that could be used to determine credits. Users should note that there is a wide range of monitored pollutant removal effectiveness in the literature. Before selecting a literature value, users should compare the characteristics of the monitored site in the literature against the characteristics of the proposed wet swale, considering such conditions as watershed characteristics, swale sizing, and climate factors.

Credits Based on Field Monitoring

Field monitoring may be made in lieu of desktop calculations or models/calculators as described. Careful planning is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED before commencing a program to monitor the performance of a BMP. The general steps involved in planning and implementing BMP monitoring include the following.

  1. Establish the objectives and goals of the monitoring. When monitoring BMP performance, typical objectives may include the following.
    1. Which pollutants will be measured?
    2. Will the monitoring study the performance of a single BMP or multiple BMPs?
    3. Are there any variables that will affect the BMP performance? Variables could include design approaches, maintenance activities, rainfall events, rainfall intensity, etc.
    4. Will the results be compared to other BMP performance studies?
    5. What should be the duration of the monitoring period? Is there a need to look at the annual performance vs the performance during a single rain event? Is there a need to assess the seasonal variation of BMP performance?
  2. Plan the field activities. Field considerations include
    1. equipment selection and placement;
    2. sampling protocols including selection, storage, and delivery to the laboratory;
    3. laboratory services;
    4. health and Safety plans for field personnel;
    5. record keeping protocols and forms; and
    6. quality control and quality assurance protocols
  3. Execute the field monitoring
  4. Analyze the results

This manual contains the following guidance for monitoring.

The following guidance manuals have been developed to assist BMP owners and operators on how to plan and implement BMP performance monitoring.

Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring

Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers prepared this guide in 2009 with support from the USEPA, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Environment and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This guide was developed to improve and standardize the protocols for all BMP monitoring and to provide additional guidance for Low Impact Development (LID) BMP monitoring. Highlighted chapters in this manual include:

  • Chapter 2: Developing a monitoring plan. Describes a seven-step approach for developing a monitoring plan for collection of data to evaluate BMP effectiveness.
  • Chapter 3: Methods and Equipment for hydrologic and hydraulic monitoring
  • Chapter 4: Methods and equipment for water quality monitoring
  • Chapters 5 (Implementation) and 6 (Data Management, Evaluation and Reporting)
  • Chapter 7: BMP Performance Analysis
  • Chapters 8 (LID Monitoring), 9 (LID data interpretation]), and 10 (Case studies).
Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control (NCHRP Report 565)

AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) sponsored this 2006 research report, which was authored by Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, the University of Florida, and the Low Impact Development Center. The primary purpose of this report is to advise on the selection and design of BMPs that are best suited for highway runoff. The document includes chapters on performance monitoring that may be a useful reference for BMP performance monitoring, especially for the performance assessment of a highway BMP.

  • Chapter 4: Stormwater Characterization
    • 4.2: General Characteristics and Pollutant Sources
    • 4.3: Sources of Stormwater Quality data
  • Chapter 8: Performance Evaluation
    • 8.1: Methodology Options
    • 8.5: Evaluation of Quality Performance for Individual BMPs
    • 8.6: Overall Hydrologic and Water Quality Performance Evaluation
  • Chapter 10: Hydrologic Evaluation
    • 10.5: Performance Verification and Design Optimization
Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices
  • In 2014 the Water Environment Federation released this White Paper that investigates the feasibility of a national program for the testing of stormwater products and practices. The report does not include any specific guidance on the monitoring of a BMP, but it does include a summary of the existing technical evaluation programs that could be consulted for testing results for specific products (see Table 1 on page 8).
Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual (Document No. CTSW-OT-13-999.43.01)]

The most current version of this manual was released by the State of California, Department of Transportation in November 2013. As with the other monitoring manuals described, this manual does include guidance on planning a stormwater monitoring program. However, this manual is among the most thorough for field activities. Relevant chapters include.

  • Chapter 4: Monitoring Methods and Equipment
  • Chapter 5: Analytical Methods and Laboratory Selection
  • Chapter 6: Monitoring Site Selection
  • Chapter 8: Equipment Installation and Maintenance
  • Chapter 10: Pre-Storm Preparation
  • Chapter 11: Sample Collection and Handling
  • Chapter 12: Quality Assurance / Quality Control
  • Chapter 13: Laboratory Reports and Data Review
  • Chapter 15: Gross Solids Monitoring
Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: A Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance

This online manual was developed in 2010 by Andrew Erickson, Peter Weiss, and John Gulliver from the University of Minnesota and St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory with funding provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The manual advises on a four-level process to assess the performance of a Best Management Practice.

Level 1 activities do not produce numerical performance data that could be used to obtain a stormwater management credit. BMP owners and operators who are interested in using data obtained from Levels 2 and 3 should consult with the MPCA or other regulatory agency to determine if the results are appropriate for credit calculations. Level 4, Monitoring, is the method most frequently used for assessment of the performance of a BMP.

Use these links to obtain detailed information on the following topics related to BMP performance monitoring:

Other pollutants

According to the International BMP Database, studies have shown wet swales are somewhat effective at reducing concentrations of bacteria, metals, and nitrogen. This database provides an overview of BMP performance in relation to various pollutant categories and constituents that were monitored in BMP studies within the database. The report notes that effectiveness and range of unit treatment processes can vary greatly depending on BMP design and location. The following table shows a list of the constituents and associated pollutant category for the monitored “media filters” data. The constituents shown all had data representing decreases in effluent pollutant loads for the median of the data points and the 95% confidence interval about the median.

Wet swale pollutant load reduction
Link to this table

Pollutant Category Constituent Treatment Capabilities

(Low = < 30%; Medium = 30-65%;

High = 65 -100%)
Metals1 Cd, Pb, Zn Medium
Cu, Cr Low
Nutrients Total Nitrogen, TKN Low
Bacteria Fecal Coliform, E. coli Medium

1Results are for total metals only


References and suggested reading

  • Ahearn, Dylan, and Richard Tveten. "Legacy LID: Stormwater Treatment in Unimproved Embankments along Highway Shoulders in Western Washington." In Proceedings of the 2008 International Low Impact Development (LID) Conference, pp. 16-19. 2008.
  • Barrett, Michael E., Michael Vincent Keblin, Patrick M. Walsh, Joseph F. Malina Jr, and Randall J. Charbeneau. Evaluation of the performance of permanent runoff controls: summary and conclusions. No. TX-99/2954-3F,. 1998.
  • Barrett, Michael E., Patrick M. Walsh, Joseph F. Malina Jr, and Randall J. Charbeneau. "Performance of vegetative controls for treating highway runoff." Journal of environmental engineering 124, no. 11 (1998): 1121-1128.
  • Barrett, Michael, Anna Lantin, and Steve Austrheim-Smith. "Storm water pollutant removal in roadside vegetated buffer strips." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1890, no. 1 (2004): 129-140.
  • Bureau of Environmental Services. 2006. Effectiveness Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management in Portland, Oregon. Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon.
  • California Stormwater Quality Association. "California Stormwater BMP Handbook-New Development and Redevelopment." California Stormwater Quality Association, Menlo Park, CA (2003).
  • Caltrans. 2004. BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Final Report, Report No., CTSW-RT-01-050. Division of Environmental Analysis, California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA
  • CDM Smith. 2012. Omaha Regional Stormwater Design Manual Chapter 8 Stormwater Best Management Practices. Kansas City, MO.
  • Dorman, M. E., H. Hartigan, F. Johnson, and B. Maestri. Retention, detention, and overland flow for pollutant removal from highway stormwater runoff: interim guidelines for management measures. Final report, September 1985-June 1987. No. PB-89-133292/XAB.
  • Consultants, Geosyntec, and Wright Water Engineers. "Urban stormwater BMP performance monitoring." (2002).
  • Leisenring, M., J. Clary, and P. Hobson. "International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals July 2012." (2012): 1-31.
  • Gulliver, J. S., A. J. Erickson, and PTe Weiss. "Stormwater treatment: Assessment and maintenance." University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Minneapolis, MN. http://stormwaterbook. safl. umn. edu (2010).
  • Guo, James CY, Gerald E. Blackler, T. Andrew Earles, and Ken MacKenzie. "Incentive index developed to evaluate storm-water low-impact designs." Journal of Environmental Engineering 136, no. 12 (2010): 1341-1346.
  • Harper, Harvey H. "Effects of stormwater management systems on groundwater quality." FDEP Project# WM190. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL (1988).
  • Jaffe, et. al. 2010. The Illinois Green Infrastructure Study. Prepared by the University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Center for Neighborhood Technology, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant.
  • Jurries, Dennis. "Biofilters (Bioswales, Vegetative Buffers, & Constructed Wetlands) for Storm Water Discharge Pollution Removal." Quality, S. o. OD o. E.(Ed.).
  • Kearfott, Pamela J., Michael E. Barrett, and Joseph F. Malina. Stormwater quality documentation of roadside shoulders borrow ditches. Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin, 2005.
  • Kim, Yun Ki, and Seung Rae Lee. "Field infiltration characteristics of natural rainfall in compacted roadside slopes." Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 136, no. 1 (2009): 248-252.
  • Leisenring, M., J. Clary, and P. Hobson. "International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals July 2012." (2012): 1-31.
  • New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 2008. New Hampshire Stormwater Manual. Volume 2 Appendix B. Concord, NH.
  • Transportation Officials, Oregon State University. Dept. of Civil, Environmental Engineering, University of Florida. Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences, GeoSyntec Consultants, and Low Impact Development Center, Inc. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control. No. 565. Transportation Research Board, 2006.
  • State of California, Department of Transportation. 2013. Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA.
  • TetraTech. 2008. BMP Performance Analysis. Prepared for US EPA Region 1, Boston, MA.
  • Torres, Camilo. "Characterization and Pollutant Loading Estimation for Highway Runoff in Omaha, Nebraska." (2010).
  • Water Environment Federation. 2014. Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices. A White Paper by the National Stormwater Testing and Evaluation of Products and Practices (STEPP) Workgroup Steering Committee.
  • WEF, ASCE/EWRI. 2012. Design of Urban Stormwater Controls, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE/EWRI Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 87. Prepared by the Design of Urban Stormwater Controls Task Forces of the Water Environment Federation and the American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental & Water Resources Institute.
  • Weiss, Peter T., John S. Gulliver, and Andrew J. Erickson. "The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices Final Report." (2005).


Related articles

This page was last edited on 23 November 2022, at 22:22.