Skip to content
Menu

E&O Filter: SAM Effectiveness Studies

MS4 Education Outreach Requirements 2024-2029

MS4 Permit E&O Requirements for 2024 – 2029:

WWA Phase I Draft 2024 – 2029 WWA Phase II Draft 2024 EWA Phase Draft II
S5.C.11 Public Education and Outreach S5.C.2 Public Education and Outreach S5.B.1 Public Education and Outreach
The SWMP shall include an E&O program designed to:
• Build general awareness about methods to address and reduce stormwater runoff.
• Effect behavior change to reduce or eliminate behaviors and practices that cause or contribute to adverse stormwater impacts.
• Create stewardship opportunities that encourages community engagement in addressing the impacts from stormwater runoff.
Permittees may choose to meet these requirements individually or as a member of a regional group. Regional collaboration on general awareness or behavior change programs, or both, includes Permittees developing a consistent message, determining best methods for communicating the message, and when appropriate, creating strategies to effect behavior change. If a Permittee chooses to adopt one or more elements of a regional program, the Permittee should participate in the regional group and shall implement the adopted element(s) of the regional program in the local jurisdiction The SWMP shall include an E&O program designed to:
• Build general awareness about methods to address and reduce impacts from stormwater runoff.
• Effect behavior change to reduce or eliminate behaviors and practices that cause or contribute to adverse stormwater impacts. AND
• Create stewardship opportunities that encourages community engagement in addressing the impacts from stormwater runoff.
Permittees may choose to meet these requirements individually or as a member of a regional group. Regional collaboration on general awareness or behavior change programs, or both, includes Permittees developing a consistent message, determining best methods for communicating the message, and when appropriate, creating strategies to effect behavior change. If a Permittee chooses to adopt one or more elements of a regional program, the Permittee should participate in the regional group and shall implement the adopted element(s) of the regional program in the local jurisdiction. Permittees shall implement a public education and outreach program designed to educate the priority audiences about the impacts of stormwater discharges to water bodies and the steps to take to reduce pollutants in stormwater. Outreach and educational efforts should include a multimedia approach and shall be targeted and presented to specific audiences for increased effectiveness. The education program may be developed and implemented locally or regionally.
Based on the priority audience’s demographic, the Permittee shall consider delivering selected messages in language(s) other than English.
Minimum performance measures: The minimum performance measures are: The minimum performance measures are:
a. Each Permittee shall implement an education and outreach program. The program design shall be based on local or regional (or both) water quality information and priority audience characteristics to identify high priority audiences, subject areas, and/or BMPs. Based on the priority audience’s demographic, the Permittee shall consider delivering its selected messages in language(s) other than English, as appropriate for the priority audience. a. Each Permittee shall implement an education and outreach program. The program design shall be based on local or regional (or both) water quality information and priority audience characteristics to identify high priority audiences, subject areas, and/or BMPs. Based on the priority audience’s demographic, the Permittee shall consider delivering its selected messages in language(s) other than English, as appropriate to the target audience. a. All Permittees shall continue to implement a public education and outreach program designed to reach priority audiences identified in i-iii below and achieve improvements in the priority audiences’ understanding of the problem and what they can do to solve it. The program shall, at a minimum address the following, based on the land uses and priority audiences found within the community. Permittees shall provide subject area information to the priority audience on an ongoing or strategic schedule.
i. General awareness: Permittees shall build general awareness with the following audiences and subject areas: i. General awareness. To build general awareness, Permittees shall annually select at a minimum one priority audience and one subject area from either (a) or (b): i. Priority audiences: General public, including homeowners, teachers, school-age children, University/college or Trade Students and overburdened communities. Provide information about the following subject areas:
a) The importance of improving water quality and protecting beneficial uses of waters of the State.
b) The potential impacts from stormwater discharges.
c) Methods for avoiding, minimizing, reducing, and/or eliminating the adverse impacts of stormwater discharges.
d) Actions individuals can take to improve water quality, including encouraging participation in local environmental stewardship activities and programs.

WWA Phase I Draft 2024 – 2029 WWA Phase II Draft 2024 EWA Phase Draft II
S5.C.11 Public Education and Outreach S5.C.2 Public Education and Outreach S5.B.1 Public Education and Outreach
(a) Priority Audiences: General Public (including school age children, college/university or trade students and overburdened communities), and businesses (including home-based and mobile business). Subject areas:
• General impacts of stormwater on surface waters, including impacts from impervious surfaces and of the hazards associated with illicit discharges and improper disposal of waste.
• LID principles and LID BMPs. (a) Priority audiences: General public (including overburdened communities, school age children, college/university, or trade students or businesses (including home-based, or mobile businesses). Subject areas: • General impacts of stormwater on surface waters, including impacts from impervious surfaces. or
• Low impact development (LID) principles and LID BMPs. ii. Priority audiences: Businesses. Provide information, appropriate to the type of business, about:
a) Preventing illicit discharges, including what constitutes illicit discharges (e.g., Source Control BMPs to prevent illicit discharges).
b) The impacts of illicit discharges.
c) Promoting the proper management and disposal of waste.
d) Management of dumpsters and washwater.
e) The use and storage of automotive chemicals, hazardous cleaning supplies, carwash soaps, and other hazardous materials.
(b) Priority audiences: Engineers, contractors, developers, property owners/managers and land use planners. Subject areas: Technical standards for stormwater site and erosion control plans.
• LID principles and LID BMPs.
• Stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities.
Source control BMPs for building materials to reduce pollution to stormwater, including but not limited to stormwater pollution from PCB‐containing materials (b) Priority audiences: Engineers, contractors, developers, property owners/managers or land use planners. Subject areas:
• Technical standards for stormwater site and erosion control plans.
• LID principles and LID BMPs.
• Stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities or
Source control BMPs for building materials to reduce pollution to stormwater, including but not limited to stormwater pollution from PCB‐containing materials. i. Priority audiences: Engineers, construction contractors, developers, property owners/managers, development review staff, land use planners. Provide information about:
a) Technical standards, development of SW site plans, TESC plans
b) Infiltration and underground injection control criteria.
c) Low Impact Development (LID).
d) Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing adverse impacts from stormwater runoff from development sites.
e) Municipal stormwater code requirements.
(f) Source control BMPs for building materials to reduce pollution to stormwater including, but not limited to, stormwater pollution from PCB‐containing materials.
(c) Permittees shall provide subject area information to the priority audience on an ongoing or strategic schedule. (c) Permittees shall provide subject area information to the priority audience on an ongoing or strategic schedule.
ii. Behavior change: To effect behavior change, Permittees shall select, at a minimum, one priority audience and one BMP: ii. Behavior change. To affect behavior change, Permittees shall select, at a minimum, one priority audience and one BMP.
(a) Priority audiences: Residents, landscapers, and property
managers/owners, school-age children, college/university or trade students and businesses (including home-based and mobile businesses). BMPs include:
• Use and storage of automotive chemicals, hazardous cleaning supplies, carwash soaps, and other hazardous materials. • Prevention of illicit discharges.
• Yard care techniques protective of water quality.
• Use/storage of pesticides & fertilizers & other household chemicals.
• Carpet cleaning.
• Repair/maintenance BMPs for vehicles, equipment, home buildings.
• Pet waste management and disposal.
• LID principles and LID BMPs.
• Stormwater facility maintenance, including LID facilities
• Dumpster and trash compactor maintenance.
• Litter and debris prevention.
• (Audience specific) Source Control BMPs, including PCB’s in building materials.
• (Audience specific) Locally important, SW-related subject area. (a) Priority Audiences: Residents, landscapers, property managers/owners, developers, school age children, college/university or trade students or businesses (including home-based or mobile businesses). BMPs include:
• Use/storage of: pesticides, fertilizers, other household chemicals.
• Use/storage of: automotive chemicals, hazardous cleaning supplies, carwash soaps, and/or other hazardous materials.
• Prevention of illicit discharges.
• Yard care techniques protective of water quality.
• Carpet cleaning.
• Repair/maintenance BMPs: vehicles, equipment, home/buildings.
• Pet waste management and disposal.
• LID Principles and LID BMPs.
• Stormwater facility maintenance, including LID facilities.
• Dumpster and trash compactor maintenance.
• Litter and debris prevention.
• Sediment and erosion control.
• (Audience specific) Source control BMPs (refer to S5.C.8). or
• (Audience specific) Locally-important, municipal SW-related subject area.

WWA Phase I Draft 2024 – 2029 WWA Phase II Draft 2024 – 2029 EWA Phase ll Draft 2024 – 2029
S5.C.11 Public Education and Outreach S5.C.2 Public Education and Outreach S5.B.1 Public Education and Outreach
iii. No later than July 1, 2025, each Permittee shall evaluate the effectiveness of the ongoing behavior change program (required under S5.C.11.a.ii of the 2019 Permit). Permittees shall document lessons learned and recommendations for which option to select from S5.C.11.a.iv. Permittees that select option S5.C.11.a.iv.c, below, may forgo this evaluation if it will not add value to the overall behavior change program. (b) No later than July 1, 2025, each Permittee shall evaluate the effectiveness of an ongoing behavior change campaign (required under S5.C.1.a.ii and S5.C.1.c of the 2019 Permit). Permittees shall document lessons learned and recommendations for which option to select from S5.C.2.a.ii.(c).
Permittees that select option S5.C.2.a.ii.(c)3, below, may forgo this evaluation if it will not add value to the overall behavior change program.
iv. Based on the recommendation from S5.C.11.a.iii, by July 1, 2026, each Permittee shall follow social marketing practices and methods, and develop a campaign that is tailored to the community, including the development of a program evaluation plan. Each Permittee shall: (c) Based on the recommendation from S5.C.2.a.ii.(b), by July 1, 2026, each Permittee shall follow social marketing practices and methods, and develop a campaign that is tailored to the community, including development of a program evaluation plan. Each Permittee shall:
(a) Develop a strategy and schedule to implement the existing campaign more effectively, or 1. Develop a strategy and schedule to more effectively implement the existing campaign; or
(b) Develop a strategy and schedule to expand the existing campaign to a new priority audience or BMPs, or 2. Develop a strategy and schedule to expand the existing campaign to a new priority audience or BMPs; or
( c) Develop a strategy and schedule for a new priority audience and BMP behavior change campaign. 3. Develop a strategy and schedule for a new priority audience and BMP behavior change campaign.
v. No later than September 1, 2026, begin to implement the strategy developed in S5.C.11.a.iv. (d) No later than September 1, 2026, begin to implement the strategy developed in S5.C.2.a.ii.(c)
vi. No later than March 31, 2029, evaluate and report on: (e) No later than March 31, 2029, evaluate and submit a report on:
(a) The changes in understanding and adoption of targeted behaviors resulting from the implementation of the strategy; and 1. The changes in understanding and adoption of targeted behaviors resulting from the implementation of the strategy; and
2. Any planned or recommended changes to the campaign to be more effective; describe the strategies and process to achieve the results. b. Each Permittee shall measure the understanding and adoption of the priority behaviors for at least one target audience in at least one subject area. No later than December 31, 2026, Permittees shall use the resulting measurements to direct ongoing education and outreach resources most effectively, as well as to evaluate changes in adoption of the targeted behaviors. Document program evaluation process and how resources will direct effective methods and implementation of the ongoing education and outreach program.
c. No later than January 1 2027, each permittee shall begin to provide and/or advertise stewardship opportunities to encourage residents or businesses to participate in activities or events planned and organized within the community such as: stream teams, storm drain marking, volunteer monitoring, and riparian plantings. Permittees may partner and/or promote stewardship opportunities created or organized by existing organizations (including non-permittees).
(b) Any changes to the campaign to be more effective; describe the strategies and process to achieve the results.
vii. Permittees shall use results of the evaluation to continue to direct effective methods for implementation of the ongoing behavior change program. (f) Permittees shall use results of the evaluation to continue to direct effective methods and implementation of the ongoing behavior change program.
b. Each Permittee shall partner and promote (or both) stewardship opportunities to encourage residents or businesses to participate in activities or events planned and organized within the community, such as: stream teams, storm drain marking, volunteer monitoring and riparian plantings .Permittees may partner or promote (or both) stewardship opportunities created or organized by existing organizations (including non- permittees). iii. Stewardship. Each Permittee shall partner and promote stewardship opportunities to encourage residents to participate in activities or events planned and organized within the community, such as: stream teams, storm drain marking, volunteer monitoring, and riparian plantings. Permittees may partner or promote (or both) stewardship opportunities created or organized by existing organizations (including non‐permittees).1
The minimum performance measures are: i. Annually, Permittees shall document specific public involvement opportunities provided to overburdened communities. ii. No later than December 31, 2026, document methods used to identify overburdened communities.
b. Each Permittee shall post on their website their SWMP plan and the Annual Report, required under S9.A, no later that May 31 each year. All other submittals shall be available to the public upon request.

2021 QAPP for Business Education and Outreach Effectiveness Study

Summary: Eastern Washington stormwater effectiveness study, QAPP evaluate effectiveness, business education and outreach efficacy, City of Ellensburg Education and Outreach Study business outreach efficacy

3.0
Background
3. 1
The Stormwater Education and Outreach (E&O) Program
This study will evaluate the effectiveness of an E&O program for the City of Ellensburg and
measure adoption of targeted behaviors by the target audience. The stormwater pollutants of
concern addressed by the E&O Program are cooking-related F.O.G. and wash water. F.O.G. and
wash water are commonly created at restaurants and can create an illicit discharge if not disposed
of properly. The E&O program will therefore focus on restaurants located within the city limits of
Ellensburg, Washington, specifically fast-food establishments. The target audience of the study
includes employees of the fast-food restaurants identified for this study.
Employees at fast-food restaurants are responsible for the maintenance and cleaning during their
shift. This process can include maintenance of grease traps, grease interceptors, mopping, and
disposal of waste materials, such as F.O.G. and wash water. Ideally, a restaurant employee would
dispose of these materials according to BMPs. If the employee is unaware of proper disposal
practices, these materials may find their way into the storm system via storm drains on the
restaurant premises via direct dumping, improper dumpster maintenance, or by other means. The
targeted behavior which the E&O program plans to address is proper maintenance and disposal of
F.O.G and wash water.
An E&O program addressing F.O.G. and wash water was implemented in 2013 and is no longer
active. The E&O program involved delivering a flier to local fast-food restaurants to inform
restaurant personnel about the negative effects that improper F.O.G. and wash water disposal has
on stormwater (see Appendix B). Due to high turn-around rates of employment in fast-food
restaurants and the growth of the number of operating businesses within the City, an updated
version of this program will be implemented and evaluated for this study.
3. 2
Problem Description
The 2019-2024 Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires permittees to
prohibit, through ordinances or other regulatory mechanism, non-stormwater discharges into the
MS4 (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2019). Additionally, permittees are required to
provide information to businesses, such as restaurants, regarding impacts and prevention of illicit
discharges, proper management and disposal of waste, management of dumpsters and wash water,
and the use of hazardous cleaning supplies and other materials. An E&O program targeting
restaurants specifically was implemented in 2013 (see Section 3.1) and will be re-implemented to
target fast-food restaurants on proper management and disposal ofF.O.G. and wash water.
F.O.G. produced at restaurants can be introduced into the storm system by direct dumping, leaking
or overflowing waste containers, or overflow from grease traps or interceptors (Husain, et al.,
2014). Once the material reaches pipes, it tends to deposit onto the walls of the pipe. Over time,
the deposits form partial or full blockages of the pipe, which then can cause localized flooding and
damage nearby structures (O'Shields, 2019). F.O.G. can also create acidic conditions within the
pipe, causing corrosion of metal pipes or dissolving concrete pipes (Fairfax County, n.d.). IfF.O.G.
continue downstream to a receiving water, the material can deplete dissolved oxygen content,
suffocating aquatic life (Environmental Protection Agency, 2020). The material can also coat
animals using the receiving water body as a habitat with oil, reducing their ability to obtain food
7/20/2021
Pagel2

2023 BMP Owner Awareness Effectiveness Study Fact Sheet

Summary: Study fact sheetwith results, owner awareness of BMP obligation, maintenance awareness, Eastern Washington, Wenatchee, Education and Outreach recommendations

BMP Owner Awareness Effectiveness Study
City of Wenatchee (Lead Agency)
Participating Partners:
City of East Wenatchee, Douglas County, Chelan County, City of Pullman
Study Completed May 11, 2023
Study Methods
Goldstreet Design, LLC, in collaboration with their research partner,
Corona Insights, was selected to conduct the survey and provide all
statistical analysis of data. All of the data was collected by the
consultant following standard operating procedures provided by the
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Activities Implemented:
The participating jurisdictions and Goldstreet Design validated the
survey to address question order, clarity, language, and reading
level. The consultant then proceeded to build the online survey
tool.
Following the survey validation, Goldstreet Design sent residents
within the study areas, City of Wenatchee, City of East Wenatchee,
Chelan County, and Douglas County, a postcard with a link and QR
code to the online survey. The postcard was sent to 703 homes
with an O&M agreement and 1,345 without an O&M agreement,
The consultant administered the survey from January 10, 2023
through February 3, 2023.
Privately owned BMP in a subdivision in
Wenatchee.
Privately owned BMP in a subdivision in
Wenatchee.
Project Description
The Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires
jurisdictions to develop, implement, and enforce a program to address
post-construction stormwater runoff from public and private projects. In
many jurisdictions, projects comleted after 2011 have an Operations &
Maintenance Agreement (O&M Agreement), detailing the type, location,
and maintenance requirements of the best management practices
(BMPs). The O&M Agreement is used as the regulatory mechanism and
in some places as the primary mechanism to inform property owners
about their BMP and the inspection and maintenance obligations.
The BMP Owner Awareness Study evaluated the effectiveness of a
recorded O&M agreement as the primary mechanism to inform property
owners of the existence of the BMP and maintenance responsibilities
related to the private stormwater BMP. The study also considered and
evaluated various factors which may influence awareness of the BMP,
including safety and appearance. The study compared BMP awareness
between homeowner groups that have recorded O&M agreements (test)
versus homeowner groups that do not have a recorded O&M agreement
(control).
Study Results
Goldstreet Design compiled and analyzed the survey data. The final report was prepared by the City of
Wenatchee.
The survey received 130 complete responses and 2 partial responses, considered to be complete
enough to be included in the final data report.
According to the data, 59% of the total respondents were somewhat to very familiar with the BMP in their
neighborhood. It was noted that those more familiar with the BMP were more likely to know the
homeowners association was responsible for maintenance.
The majority of residents (59%) were unfamiliar with the O&M agreement associated with their BMP and
less than half (44%) of the residents within the Test area (with an O&M) were unfamiliar with the O&M
agreement for their neighborhood.
The study assessed factors which may raise awareness of BMPs, such as concerns for safety or
appearance. Within the entire study area, approximately half reported having no opinion or no concerns
about the BMP; however, when presented with a specific list of potential concerns, 79% reported at least
one concern. The primary concerns identified were steep slopes, mosquito breeding, attracting pests and
flooding. Concerns were also raised about the BMP becoming a fire hazard due to lack of vegetation
management.
The survey identified that the majority (79%) of total respondents have not received information about
their BMP. Of the remaining 29% who indicated they have received information about their BMP, the
homeowners association was the most commonly selected source of information. Over half (56%) of all
residents indicated they would prefer to receive communication about their BMPs through a direct
mailing.
Very few residents within the Control (w/o O&M) and (Test (w/ O&M) (22% and 31% respectively) knew
how often inspections or maintenance are performed.
Lead Agency Contact
Information
P.O. Box 519
Wenatchee, WA 98807
(509) 888-3200
Final Report Available at
Wenatchee Valley Stormwater
Program webpage:
www.wenatcheewa.gov/WVSTAC
Recommendations for the BMP Owner Awareness Education & Outreach
More education for BMP owner awareness are recommend throughout the study area, but additional information
regarding the O&M Agreement specificially may be beneficial throughout the permit coverage test area. Based on
this study, the recommended improvements to the BMP owner education and outreach program include:
Consider reviewing the O&M Agreement language and template to reduce the usage of legal terminology
and stormwater jargon.
Provide additional education and outreach to property owners using a direct mailing, which was noted as
the preferred method of communication by study participants. The mailing will provide information and
access to the effectiveness study data as well as refreshed information regarding stormwater BMPs., and
develop some frequently asked questions (FAQs) about BMPs and required maintenance may be
developed to serve as a quick reference for property owners.
Project
Study
Area.

2023 City of Wenatchee BMP Owner Awareness Report

Summary: Eastern Washington, effectiveness studies, Bioretention soil media thickness effectiveness study fact sheet, Spokane County and Gonzaga University BSM thickness effectiveness, pollutant removal efficiency, future actions for BSM studies, BSM infiltration rates,

Eastern Washington
Stormwater Effectiveness Studies
Final Report
BMP Owner Awareness
Study Classification:
â–¡ Structural BMP
 Operational BMP
✓Education & Outreach
Study Objective:
 Evaluate Effectiveness
Compare Effectiveness
Prepared By:
Kelsey Grover, Stormwater Technician
Public Works Department
301 Yakima St
Wenatchee, WA 98801
509-888-3273
Final Report Public Information
The final report will be available on the regional Wenatchee Valley Stormwater Technical Advisory
Committee webpage hosted by the City of Wenatchee, www.wenatcheewa.gov/wvstac.
Final Report Author and Contact Information
Kelsey Grover, Stormwater Technician
City of Wenatchee, Public Works Department
301 Yakima St.
Wenatchee, WA 98801
509-888-3273
[email protected]
1.0
Background
Increasingly dense development within urbanized areas has required improved methods to
manage stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. The use of pipes and catch basins was
adequate for a time, but rapid urbanization, persistent degradation of natural landscapes,
water quality and climate-change related increases in the amount and intensity of rainfall have
all made stormwater management a high priority. To prevent or minimize water quality impacts
of new and redevelopment projects, Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permittees were required to develop, implement, and enforce a program to address post-
construction stormwater runoff from public and private projects beginning in 2011. The
minimum requirement set forth by the Permit was a regulatory mechanism for projects
meeting a one-acre threshold to manage a percentage of stormwater onsite using post-
construction best management practices (BMPs). Permitted jurisdictions were also required to
implement a regulatory mechanism to ensure long-term maintenance of the BMPs.
The Permit states that project proponents shall ensure implementation of long-term operation
and maintenance standards to protect water quality and reduce the discharge of pollutants to
the maximum extent practicable. As project are completed, developers transfer BMP
maintenance responsibility to property owners and homeowners associations. In many
jurisdictions, for projects built after 2011, BMP owners have a recorded Declaration of
Stormwater Covenants, also referred to as an Operations and Maintenance Agreement (O&M
agreement), detailing the type, location, and maintenance requirements for the BMP requiring
inspection and maintenance. For many Permittees, the O&M agreement recorded with the
County Auditor at the time of BMP installation is used to inform property owners about the
purpose and maintenance requirements of the BMP. For many projects built before 2011,
information about the stormwater BMP was incorporated into the covenants recorded on the
subdivision plat or in the homeowners’ association covenants.
The effectiveness of the O&M agreement used as the primary mechanism to inform property
owners about their BMP, maintenance responsibilities and purpose of their BMP was evaluated
based on owner awareness of the BMP and the O&M agreement. Surveys responses were
compared from a test group (Test (w/ O&M)), consisting of residents in subdivisions with an
O&M agreement, and a control group (Control (w/o O&M)), consisting of residents in
subdivisions without an O&M agreement, to determine if there was any significant difference in
owner awareness between the two groups.
2.0 Study Method
Goldstreet Design, in collaboration with their research partner, Corona Insights, was hired to
conduct the surveys and provide the statistical analysis of the results. All survey data was
collected by the consultant. The standard operating procedures, notification mailing, and
survey used in this study can be found in Appendix A.
There were two modifications made to the Residential Survey Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) documented in the BMP Owner Awareness Education and Outreach Study Quality
Assurance Project Plan, approved February 14, 2022. The first change to the SOP included
utilizing only a web-based survey and removing the option for a mail in survey. During the
survey validation process, the consultant advised the Technical Advisory Group, for the cost and
effort of mailing and returning paper surveys, the number of responses would be minimal.
Removing the mail survey option was also determined to be more environmentally conscious,
by reducing printed and mailed pages, which would likely be recycled or thrown away. The
second modification to the SOP included the use of an incentive to complete the survey. The
use of an incentive was authorized by consulting with jurisdiction Finance Departments to
determine how the incentive could be included. After a respondent completed the survey, they
would be eligible to enter a drawing for a fifty-dollar Visa gift card. The incentive was offered by
Goldstreet Design and included in the jurisdiction invoices.
2.1 Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was designed to evaluate BMP owner awareness using questions to
address overall knowledge of the BMP, any concerns or attitudes that residents may have
about the BMP, and any maintenance or actions that have been done associated with the BMP.
The homeowner survey was conducted by Goldstreet Design through distribution of a post card
with a QR code and a traditional web link to the survey. To encourage survey responses and
avoid being mistaken as “junk” mail, the postcard was designed with an introduction to
Goldstreet Design and Corona Insights that included the purpose of the survey, the logos for
the jurisdictions in the study area, and a local return address.
2.2 Test and Control Area Surveys
Each jurisdiction in the study area, which includes Chelan County, Douglas County, East
Wenatchee, and Wenatchee, compiled a list of subdivisions meeting the study criteria; one acre
or larger at the time of construction with one or more BMPs serving more than one home. As
development is regularly occurring and to prevent changing population sizes, only subdivisions
which were finalized at the time of the QAPPP approval were included in the study. To
establish the test and control populations when providing the list of subdivisions, the
jurisdictions indicated if the subdivision had an O&M agreement. Subdivisions with an O&M
agreement would be the test population and subdivisions without an O&M agreement would
be the control population. With the list of subdivisions meeting the study criteria, the mailing
list was created by using tax parcel data layers from the County Assessor’s ArcGIS database. The
Test (w/O&M) population consisted of 703 homes and the Control (w/o O&M) population
consisted of 1,345 homes.
Goldstreet Design mailed the survey postcards on January 10, 2023 to all of the homes within
the study area. The online survey was available from January 10, 2023 to February 3, 2023.
3.0 Results
Goldstreet Design and Corona Insights summarized the results of the subdivision survey in a
report. The preliminary data report of the survey data was received from the consultant on
April 5, 2023 and the final data package with all of the data collected by the consultant was
received May 11, 2023. The Goldstreet Design preliminary report and complete survey data
can be found in Appendix B.
3.1
Survey Results
Following the online survey closure, 132 responses were collected. Two of the survey responses
were partial, but considered to be complete enough to include in the final data report. There
were 87 responses from the Control (w/o O&M) population and 45 responses from the Test (w/
O&M) population. The following section presents the survey results from the test and control
group.
3.1.1
Subdivision Survey Responses
Question 1: How familiar are you with the stormwater facility that collects stormwater
for your neighborhood?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Very familiar
36%
38%
Moderately familiar
23%
17%
33%
Somewhat familiar
18%
22%
11%
Slightly familiar
12%
11%
13%
Not at all familiar
11%
14%
132
Question 2: Based on your understanding, whose responsibility is it to maintain the
stormwater facility? Please select all that apply.
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
The local homeowners association
58%
55%
62%
The County
29%
24%
38%
The City
17%
21%
11%
The property owner
Someone else
I don’t know
11%
132
Question 3: How familiar with the Operations & Maintenance Agreement (O&M
agreement) for the stormwater facility in your neighborhood?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Very familiar
13%
Moderately familiar
11%
Somewhat familiar
Slightly familiar
15%
16%
Not at all familiar
59%
63%
51%
Not applicable- Our neighborhood
doesn’t have an O&M agreement
132
Question 4: How concerned are you about the stormwater facility?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Extremely concerned
Somewhat concerned
16%
17%
14%
A little concerned
25%
21%
34%
Not concerned at all
42%
43%
39%
No opinion
10%
132
Question 5: Are you concerned about any of the following related to the stormwater
facility? Please select all that apply.
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Unsafe, steep slopes
11%
30%
49%
Mosquito breeding
36%
22%
27%
Attracting pests (e.g., rats, raccoons)
26%
22%
33%
Flooding
23%
29%
20%
Water Retention
17%
21%
11%
Being Vandalized
10%
11%
Making the neighborhood look bad
26%
Other
10%
31%
None of the above
27%
25%
31%
132
Question 6: Have you ever received any information about the stormwater facility in your
neighborhood?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Yes
21%
17%
29%
79%
83%
71%
132
Questions 7, 8, and 9 of the survey were shown only to respondents who answered “Yes” to
receiving information about the stormwater facility in their neighborhood.
Question 7: Where have your received information from regarding the stormwater facility
in your neighborhood? Please select all that apply?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Title company
Real estate agent
The local homeowner’s association
86%
93%
77%
Local government (City or County)
14%
23%
Other
15%
Don’t recall
Question 8: Based on your understanding, what type of recordkeeping is there regarding
the maintenance of the stormwater facility in your neighborhood? Please select all that
apply.
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Checklist(s)
25%
46%
Photos
14%
13%
15%
Other
None
11%
13%
I don’t know.
54%
67%
38%
Question 9: Based on your understanding, what type of maintenance has been done to
the stormwater facility in your neighborhood? Please select all that apply.
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Mowing the grass
39%
13%
69%
Weed removal
57%
67%
46%
Removing sediment
25%
20%
31%
Cleaning catch basins
21%
27%
15%
Other
11%
15%
I don’t know
Question 10: How often are inspections and maintenance done on the stormwater
facility?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Monthly
Yearly
12%
11%
13%
Only after a major rain event
Never
11%
I don’t know
75%
78%
69%
132
Question 11: What is the best away for you to receive stormwater information about your
neighborhood’s stormwater facility.
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Direct mail to me
56%
60%
49%
Communication through the HOAs
34%
28%
44%
City/ County website
City/ County social media
Something else
131
Demographics
The full list of demographic questions is included in the data report found in Appendix B.
Question 12: How long have you lived at your current residence?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
0-5 years
31%
40%
6-10 years
39%
31%
56%
11-15 years
11%
15%
Longer than 15 years
15%
23%
132
Question 13: Do you rent or own your home?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Rent
Own
99%
100%
132
Question 14: Which of the following categories includes your age?
Total
Control
(w/o O&M)
Test
(w/ O&M)
Under 18
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
11%
13%
55 to 64
21%
22%
20%
65 or older
50%
46%
58%
132
4.0 Discussion and Recommendations
The data was collected in accordance with the quality control procedures set forth in the QAPP
and was determined to be acceptable. The audit and data verification reports can be found in
Appendix C.
4.1 Discussion of Results
With 132 responses, the response rate for the survey was approximately seven percent. This
response rate is within the typical range of a mailed survey, which often have response rates of
less than 10 percent (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). Due to the relatively low number of survey
responses, the data was presented in percentages because additional statistical analysis would
have increased the margin of error.
Despite the low number of results, the survey to the subdivisions did yield some important
information about BMP owner awareness. Over half (59%) of residents within the study area
are moderately to very familiar with the stormwater facility in their neighborhood. It was also
noted from the study area that respondents who were more familiar with the stormwater
structure in their neighborhood were more likely to know that the local homeowners
association (HOA) is responsible for the maintenance in comparison to those less familiar with
the structure, who were more likely to believe maintenance responsibility fell with the City or
County. When asked about the familiarity with the O&M agreement, over half (59%) of the
total residents were not familiar at all with the O&M agreement. Within the Test (w/O&M)
population, less than half (44%) reported any familiarity with the O&M agreement for their
neighborhood.
The survey was designed to address several factors which may influence awareness of a
stormwater BMP, including concerns related to safety, appearance, or perceptions of
usefulness. When asked about having any concerns about the BMP, approximately half of the
total residents reported having no concerns or no opinion about the BMP; however, when
presented with a specific list of potential concerns, 79% of all residents reported having at least
one concern. The primary concerns identified were steep slopes, mosquito breeding, attracting
pests, and flooding. In the section of the survey which allowed responders to add additional
comments, concerns associated with flooding and steep slopes were reiterated and concerns
were also raised about the stormwater structure becoming a fire hazard due to overgrown
vegetation. Comments suggested the stormwater structures may be oversized and unnecessary
for Eastern Washington weather patterns. The significant percentage of respondents indicating
they had one or more concerns about the BMP may reveal while not everyone is familiar with
the specifics associated with the BMP, there may be a larger population aware of the structure
or if problems are occurring, though they may not know where to direct their concerns.
The survey was also intended to assess actions associated with the BMP, including receiving
information, inspections, and maintenance. When residents were asked if they had received
information about the BMP, the majority (71%) of the total population indicated they have not
received any information about their BMPs, which is equal to 83% of the…

QAPP for City of W. Richland Non-vegetated filtration swale effectiveness study

Summary: QAPP for Non-vegetated filtration swale, stormwater management, Eastern Washington non-vegetated swale efficacy QAPP

Eastern Washington
Stormwater Effectiveness Studies
Detailed Study Design Proposal &
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
Non-Vegetated Filtration Swale Stormwater
Effectiveness Study
Study Classification:
 Structural BMP
ï‚£ Operational BMP
ï‚£ Education & Outreach
Study Objective(s):
 Evaluate Effectiveness
ï‚£ Compare Effectiveness
 Develop Modified BMP
ï‚£ Develop New BMP
Prepared For:
City of West Richland
Public Works Department
3100 Belmont Blvd. Suite 102
West Richland, WA 99353
Prepared By:
Evergreen StormH2O, LLC
PO Box 18912
Spokane, Washington 99228
June 2022
P a g e | i
QAPP Publication Information
The QAPP will be available to the public on the City of West Richland website
(https://www.westrichland.org/189/Stormwater).
QAPP Author and Contact Information
Aimee Navickis-Brasch, PhD, PE
Evergreen StormH2O, LLC
Principal and President
PO Box 18912
Spokane, WA 99228
[email protected]
509-995-0557
Taylor Hoffman-Ballard, PE
Evergreen StormH2O, LLC
Project Manager
PO Box 18912
Spokane, WA 99228
[email protected]
952-836-7863
Nicole Chen
Engineer-In-Training
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
1402 3rd Avenue, Suite 415
Seattle, WA 98101
[email protected]
206-876-7740
Kevin Flanagan
Engineer-In-Training
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
101 S. Stevens Street, Suite 103
Spokane, WA 99201
[email protected]
509-960-7849
Mark Maurer, PE, PLS
Evergreen StormH2O, LLC
Senior Stormwater Engineer
PO Box 18912
Spokane, WA 99228
[email protected]
360-790-6421
7/01/2022
Brandi Lubliner
7/01/2022
6/30/2022
P a g e | iii
Distribution List
This section includes
Name, Title
Organization
Contact Information:
Address, Telephone, E-mail
Drew Woodruff
City Engineer
City of West Richland
[email protected]
(509) 967-5434
Martin Nelson
Public Works
Development Review
Supervisor
City of Kennewick
[email protected]
(509) 585-4306
Brian Pope
Civil Engineer
City of Richland
[email protected]
(509) 942-7508
Michael Henao
Environmental
Compliance Coordinator
City of Pasco
[email protected]
(509) 545-3454
Brian Morgenroth
Stormwater Coordinator
City of Walla Walla
[email protected]
(509) 534-4559
Seth Walker
Chief of Engineering &
Construction
Walla Walla County
[email protected]
509-524-2710
Joy Bader
Technician IV
Walla Walla County
[email protected]
509-524-2733
Chuck Geissel
Technician III
Walla Walla County
[email protected]
509-524-2729
Andrea Jedel
Water Quality PM
Washington State
Department of Ecology
[email protected]
509-961-0625
Doug Howie
Senior Stormwater
Engineer
Washington State
Department of Ecology
[email protected]
360-870-0983
Aimee Navickis-Brasch
Principal and President
Evergreen StormH2O,
LLC
[email protected]
509-995-0557
Taylor Hoffman-Ballard
Project Manager
Evergreen StormH2O,
LLC
[email protected]
509-867-3650
Nicole Chen
Engineer-In-Training
Evergreen StormH2O,
LLC
[email protected]
206-876-7740
Kevin Flanagan
Engineer-In-Training
Evergreen StormH2O,
LLC
[email protected]
509-960-7849
Mark Maurer
Senior Stormwater
Engineer
Evergreen StormH2O,
LLC
[email protected]
(509) 867-3654
P a g e | 1
1.0
Table of Contents
QAPP PUBLICATION INFORMATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. I
QAPP AUTHOR AND CONTACT INFORMATION ………………………………………………………………………………… I
SIGNATURE PAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..II
DISTRIBUTION LIST …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… III
1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
3.0
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………….. 5
3.1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STRUCTURAL BMP …………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
3.2
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
3.3
RESULTS OF PRIOR STUDIES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
3.3.1 Developed Non-Vegetated Filtration Swale Alternatives ………………………………………………………………… 8
3.4
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
4.0
PROJECT OVERVIEW …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
4.1
STUDY GOAL ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
4.2
STUDY DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES: …………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
4.3
STUDY LOCATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
4.4
DATA NEEDED TO MEET OBJECTIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
4.5
TASKS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT STUDY …………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
4.6
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
5.0
ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE ……………………………………………………………………………………… 17
5.1
KEY PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES …………………………………………………………. 17
5.2
PROJECT SCHEDULE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
5.3
BUDGET AND FUNDING SOURCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
6.0
QUALITY OBJECTIVES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
6.1
PRECISION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
6.2
BIAS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
6.3
REPRESENTATIVENESS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
7.0
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
7.1
STUDY DESIGN OVERVIEW …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
7.2
TEST-SITE(S) SELECTION PROCESS …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
7.3
THE STRUCTURAL BMP SYSTEM SIZING ………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
7.4
TYPE OF DATA BEING COLLECTED ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
7.5
STORM EVENT SIMULATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35
7.6
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36
8.0
SAMPLING PROCEDURES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
8.1
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES …………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
8.1.1 Site Preparation for Simulated Storm Event ……………………………………………………………………………….. 38
8.1.2 Simulate Water Quality Storm Event ………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
8.1.3 Sample Processing……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
8.2
CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION METHODS, HOLDING TIMES …………………………………………………………….. 41
8.3
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
8.4
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
P a g e | 2
8.5
CHAIN OF CUSTODY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
8.6
FIELD LOG REQUIREMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
9.0
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES …………………………………………………………………………………………… 44
9.1
PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING FIELD MEASUREMENTS ………………………………………………………………….. 44
9.2
LABORATORY PROCEDURES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
9.3
SAMPLE PREPARATION METHODS ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 44
9.4
SPECIAL METHOD REQUIREMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
9.5
LAB(S) ACCREDITED FOR METHODS ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
10.0
QUALITY CONTROL ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46
10.1 FIELD QC REQUIRED …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46
10.2 LABORATORY QC REQUIRED ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
10.3 CORRECTIVE ACTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
11.0
DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCEDURES ……………………………………………………………………… 48
11.1 DATA RECORDING & REPORTING REQUIREMENTS …………………………………………………………………………. 48
11.2 ELECTRONIC TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
11.3 LABORATORY DATA PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………… 49
11.4 PROCEDURES FOR MISSING DATA …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 49
11.5 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR EXISTING DATA …………………………………………………………………………………. 49
11.6 DATA UPLOAD PROCEDURES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
12.0
AUDITS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 50
12.1 TECHNICAL SYSTEM AUDITS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50
12.2 PROFICIENCY TESTING …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 50
13.0
DATA VERIFICATION AND USABILITY ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………………. 51
13.1 DATA VERIFICATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
13.2 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
14.0
DATA ANALYSIS METHODS & PRESENTATION ………………………………………………………………. 53
14.1 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
14.1.1
Statistical Comparison of Pollutant Concentrations ……………………………………………………………. 53
14.1.2
Calculation of Pollutant Removal Efficiency ………………………………………………………………………. 53
14.1.3
Water Quality Treatment Performance ……………………………………………………………………………… 53
14.1.4
Length of Swale and Hydraulic Residence Time ………………………………………………………………….. 54
14.1.5
Manning’s n Verification ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54
14.2 DATA PRESENTATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
15.0
REPORTING …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 59
15.1 FINAL REPORTING ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59
15.2 DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS …………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
16.0
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 60
17.0
APPENDICES…

2022 Drain Rangers Final Report, City of Kennewick

Summary: Effectiveness Study Education and Outreach, Eastern Washington, Elementary School Drain Rangers Program, Kennewick stormwater,

EASTERN WASHINGTON
STORMWATER EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STORMWATER EDUCATION
EFFECTIVENESS STUDY: DRAIN RANGERS PROGRAM
DRAIN RANGERS | FINAL REPORT 2022
Kara Kaelber, Education Director
Franklin Conservation District
1724 Superior Street, Pasco, WA 99301
Phone: 509-416-0440, ext. 107
Email: [email protected]
Martin Nelson, Development Review
Supervisor
City of Kennewick
1010 E Chemical Drive, Kennewick, WA 99336
Phone: 509-585-4306
Email: [email protected]
Brian Pope
Civil Engineer I
City of Richland
625 Swift Blvd. MS#26, Richland, WA 99352
Phone: 509-942-7508
Email: [email protected]
Drew Woodruff, PE
City Engineer
City of West Richland
3100 Belmont Blvd., Ste. 102, West Richland,
WA 99353
Phone: 509-967-5434
Email: [email protected]
Michael Henao
Environmental Compliance
Coordinator
City of Pasco
PO Box 293, 525 N. Third Ave., Pasco, WA
99301
Phone: 509-544-3080 ext. 3454
Email: [email protected]
Shilo Sprouse, CSI
Stormwater Services Program
Manager
City of Pullman
325 SE Paradise St, Pullman, WA 99163
Phone: 509-338-3140
Email: [email protected]
Jeff Wiemer
Regional Stormwater Coordinator
Asotin County
PO Box 160, Asotin, WA 99402
Phone: 509-243-2074
Email: [email protected]
Jack Wells
Natural Resource Specialist,
Stormwater Lead
Yakima County
WRD, 4th Floor, 128 N. 2nd Street, Yakima,
WA 98901
Phone: 509-574-2350
Email: [email protected]
Chad Phillips
Assistant Engineer
City of Spokane Valley
10210 E Sprague, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Phone: 509-720-5013
Email: [email protected]
Randy Meloy, PE
Surface Water Engineer
City of Yakima
2220 East Viola Ave., Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: 509-576-6606
Email: [email protected]
Andrea Jedel, PWS
Municipal Stormwater Permit
Manager
WA State Department of
Ecology
1250 W. Alder St, Union Gap, WA 98903-0009
Phone: 509-575-2807
Email: [email protected]
Brandi Lubliner
WA State Department of
Ecology
Phone: 360-407-7140
Email: [email protected]
Abbey Stockwell
WA State Department of
Ecology
PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-7221
Email: [email protected]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Prepared in partnership by the following organizations and team members:
DRAIN RANGERS | FINAL REPORT 2022
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………. 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………4
1.0 Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5
1.1 The Stormwater Education and Outreach (E&O) Program…………………………………………………………………………….5
1.2 Problem Description……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
1.3 Results of Prior Studies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
1.4 Regulatory Requirements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
2.0 Project Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
2.1 Study Goal…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
2.2 Study Description, Objectives and Tasks ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
2.3 Study Location and/or Target Population……………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
3.0 Organization and Execution……………………………………………………………………………………… 11
3.1 Key Project Team Members: Roles and Responsibilities……………………………………………………………………………….. 11
3.2 Training and Participating Schools……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
3.3 Challenges………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
4.0 Test Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
4.1 Pre/Post Surveys…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
4.2 Additional Tasks (Student Essays, Posters and Other Miscellaneous Items)……………………………………… 13
5.0 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
6.0 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….15
7.0 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
Appendix A – Drain Rangers Curriculum: Overview and Objectives……………………………………………………………..16
Appendix B – EWA Drain Rangers Stormwater Student Pre/Post Survey Form……………………………………….18
Appendix C – Tabulation of Surveys……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
Appendix D – Student Essays and Miscellaneous…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 25
Appendix E – Student Posters………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30
DRAIN RANGERS | FINAL REPORT 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for municipal stormwater
discharges, stormwater pollution prevention education and outreach programs are important
elements of an effective stormwater management program. It is never too early to teach
principles of stormwater pollution prevention and to this end the Drain Rangers program was
developed in 2015 by the Pacific Education Institute, working together with formal educators,
cities, and nonprofits throughout Washington to create an excellent stormwater curriculum that
meets next generation standards.
In 2016, the Franklin Conservation District adapted the Drain Rangers program to Eastern
Washington needs, and in 2018 they are implementing the program through several elementary
schools (Grades 3-5) in the Quad-Cities (Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, West Richland) area of
Eastern Washington.
This study performed before and after testing on students in several elementary school classes
to measure the effectiveness of the Drain Rangers program, in areas of Action, Knowledge and
Attitude. Due to the effects of the worldwide pandemic, the study was performed from 2019-
2021. Ten 4th and 5th grade elementary school classes and 209 students were taught the Drain
Rangers program curriculum and given pre/post survey tests, with the results contained in this
document.
The study results indicate that the Drain Rangers program has a very positive effect on educating
students about stormwater effects and solutions. This included a 22% increase in expressed
actions to address stormwater issues, a 67% increase in scoring for stormwater knowledge and
solutions, and a 17% increase in expressed attitude that personal actions can make a positive
difference to keep waterways clean and healthy.
Based on those scores, this report enthusiastically recommends the continuation and further
implementation of the Drain Rangers program to educate elementary school students in the
stormwater world. The study includes recommendations for future implementation of the
program.
DRAIN RANGERS | FINAL REPORT 2022
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 The Stormwater Education and Outreach (E&O) Program
The Eastern Washington (EWA) NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater (MS4) permit specifies that
the cities and counties covered under the permit (permittees) implement public education and
outreach (E&O) programs. The target audience for these programs is the general public, including
school-aged children, living in the permitted jurisdictions or region. The goal of these programs
is to inform the public about “…the importance of improving water quality and protecting
beneficial uses of waters of the state; potential impacts from stormwater discharges; methods
for avoiding, minimizing, reducing and/or eliminating the adverse impacts of stormwater
discharges; and actions individuals can take to improve water quality…”.
Some permittees meet this requirement by partnering with K-12 schools in their jurisdiction
and providing educational workshops and presentations focused on stormwater as part of the
regular school day for students. Other permittees partner with organizations, which specialize in
educational training, to provide formal classroom instruction on their behalf. For example, several
EWA permittees have an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Franklin Conservation District (FCD)
to provide this service. These jurisdictions include:
• City of Ellensburg
• City of Yakima
• Yakima County Stormwater Group (Selah, Union Gap, Sunnyside, Grandview)
• Quad Cities (Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, West Richland)
• Asotin County
• City of Clarkston
• City of Asotin
The FCD has two stormwater education programs: Water on Wheels and Drain Rangers.
Water on Wheels is for students in grades K-6th. The goal of this program is to increase the
students’ awareness of water and soil conservation issues. The Drain Rangers program is for
students in grades 3rd-5th. The goal of Drain Rangers is to increase the student’s awareness and
understanding of stormwater pollution issues facing their community including the specific
actions students can take to improve the quality of the waterways in their community.
This study measured the effectiveness of the Drain Rangers educational program. Drain Rangers
was developed with funds from an Ecology Grants of Regional or Statewide Significance (GROSS)
Grant by educators, western Washington (WWA) permittees, and nonprofit organizations. Drain
Rangers is a stormwater curricular unit with 10 lesson plans that are intended to be taught in
classrooms and outdoors on the school site over a three to four-week period. The lesson plans
focus on teaching students what stormwater is, how pollutants can get into waterways, and
the actions students can take to keep waterways clean (i.e. prevent stormwater pollutants from
entering waterways). Students also apply the engineering design process to develop solutions
to stormwater runoff problems and then develop an educational campaign to share what they
learned with others in their community. The curriculum was specifically developed to align with
DRAIN RANGERS | FINAL REPORT 2022
the MS4s NPDES goals for the E&O programs as well as elementary school learning standards
including the Washington State common core for English Language Arts (ELA) and the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS).
Drain Rangers was pilot tested during the 2016-2017 academic year at schools in WWA. The results
from the pilot study were released on June 30, 2017, and can be found at: http://pugetsoundstorm.
weebly.com/uploads/1/1/2/3/11234420/drain_rangers-final_report.pdf
The FCD is one of the organizations involved in the Drain Rangers curriculum development. Their
role was to adapt the curriculum to EWA and provide teacher training workshops in Spokane,
Ellensburg and the Quad-Cities. An overview of the EWA lesson plans is in Appendix A and a copy
of the Drain Rangers curriculum is available on the FCD website: https://drive.google.com/file/
d/0B5-jJRFUiir7OXVDWFV0Zng4LTQ/view
The focus of this study was to measure the effectiveness of the Drain Rangers curriculum in up to
three EWA elementary schools in the Quad-Cities. In the end, the study involved ten classrooms
and ____ students, exceeding expectations.
1.2 Problem Description
Drain Rangers is a new educational program that has been implemented in a limited number of
WWA schools. As such, there are many questions about this educational program including:
• What is the short-term impact of the Drain Rangers educational program for increasing
student’s awareness and understanding of stormwater pollution immediately following
their participating in the program?
• Will the Drain Rangers educational program have a lasting impact on student’s awareness
and understanding of stormwater pollution one or more years after students participate in
the program?
• What aspects (if any) of the Drain Rangers educational program will motivate students
to take actions that will prevent stormwater pollution in their neighborhoods and
communities?
• Will teachers incorporate the Drain Rangers educational program into their standard
curriculum and make a long-term commitment to teach the program? survey them.
This study focused on the first question and sought to measure the short-term effectiveness of
the Drain Rangers stormwater educational program. Answering the questions in the other bullets
was beyond the scope and timeline of this Effectiveness Study. However, since the ultimate
goal of stormwater education programs is to make a sustainable, positive impact on students,
it is important to understand the variables that are more likely to yield this impact. This section
provides a summary of findings from related research that have attempted to answer similar
questions. These findings were all reported in a 2001 synthesis of literature written by Rickinson
titled Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A critical review of the evidence
(Rickinson, 2001).
It is evident from research reported on K-12 environmental educational programs, similar to Drain
Rangers, that these programs can have a positive effect on student’s attitude and knowledge
DRAIN RANGERS | FINAL REPORT 2022
of the environment. Many studies have reported a significant positive impact in students
immediately after the program. However, the long-term impact of these programs on students
is not as evident. Some researchers have reported a measurable increase in student’s awareness
of the relationship between…

2022 Fact Sheet Yakima Car Wash Wastewater E&O Effectiveness Study03

Summary: Fact sheet City of Yamima Car Wash wastewater, E&O effectiveness study, citizen car wash BMPs, strategies to keep car wash water out of stormdrains, results and recomendations for E&O for car washing

Yakima Car Wash Wastewater
Education and Outreach (E&O)
Effectiveness Study
YAKIMA CAR WASH WASTEWATER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH (E&O) EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Study Goal
The goal of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an education and outreach (E&O) program.
The evaluation was used to meet a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Permit)-required
evaluation of a stormwater management program element (S8 Monitoring and Assessment) and of an
E&O program (S5.B.1.b). To meet the permit requirements, a new E&O program was developed for the City
of Yakima. The E&O program was developed to increase residents' awareness about the impacts of car
wash wastewater on water bodies and to promote behavior change, specifically, using car washing best
management practices (BMPs) can reduce that impact. This focus was selected because City staff have
observed residents washing their cars outside of their home and allowing car wash wastewater to reach
the storm drain. Runoff entering the storm drain is typically not treated before discharging to water bodies
and can contain pollutant loadings that are detrimental to water quality and aquatic life. The effectiveness
of the E&O program developed to address this issue was based upon whether a change in awareness and
adoption of targeted behaviors (adoption of preferred car washing BMPs) by the City of Yakima residents was
measured during the study.
Study Description
The City of Yakima developed the E&O program to target car washing behaviors of residents who drive one
or more vehicles (target audience). The study took place in the City of Yakima as shown in Figure 1 and data
was collected from residents throughout
Yakima County. Three neighborhoods were
targeted for the study (target neighborhoods)
because car washing behaviors had been
observed at the residences by City staff. The
targeted neighborhoods received post cards
and doorknockers (brochures) to advertise
the survey and increase awareness of
preferred car washing BMPs, respectively.
These neighborhoods were also selected to
collect observational drive-by data.
Measurement of awareness and adoption of
targeted behaviors occurred by comparing
survey data collected before and after the E&O program was implemented in Yakima. Survey responses
provided insight of residents’ understanding of the impacts of car wash wastewater discharges to water
bodies, use of preferred car washing BMPs and non-environmentally friendly practices, and barriers
preventing the BMPs from being adopted. The survey was developed and made available to residents
through SurveyMonkey® from August 2021 to the end of October 2021 and the E&O program was deployed
in mid-August to early October 2021. Responses to a specific question in the survey were used to determine
whether respondents had seen the E&O program materials (defined as after implementation of the E&O
program) or not seen the E&O program materials (defined as before implementation of the E&O program).
Observational data and commercial car wash usage data were collected to verify the results of the survey.
Staff attempted to gather observational data via drive-by visits through three target neighborhoods on two
weekends prior to the survey being made available (late July 2021) and on two weekends near the end of the
survey (late October 2021). During the drive-by visits, insufficient observations were collected to verify the
results of the survey. In an attempt to supplement the observational data, commercial car wash locations in
Yakima were contacted to request car wash usage data, to determine if residents were using commercial car
washes more frequently (one of the preferred car washing BMPs) and out of the five businesses contacted,
one responded.
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
CAR WASHING
METHODS
Washing your car
on the street or
in your driveway
causes wash
wastewater to flow
into the storm
drain system.
Water collected
by a storm drain
IS NOT TREATED
and goes directly
into our natural
environment.
If a commercial car wash isn’t an option, wash
cars on an area that absorbs water, such as gravel,
grass, or loose soil. Be sure to use biodegradable,
non‑toxic cleaners. Diverting any water that may
enter the storm system is easy! Use items you
already own (boxes, towels, etc.) to keep the flow
of water away from storm drains.
Use a commercial car wash. Commercial car
washes are required to send all their wash water
to sanitary sewers for treatment and recycle
most of the water. Most commercial car washes
use 60% less water in the entire washing process
compared to rinsing your car at home.
Avoid using soap, instead, try using only water
or a waterless car wash product that can be
applied and wiped off with a cloth, leaving the
storm drains clear of potential pollutants. If you
need soap, be sure to use chlorine‑free and
phosphate‑free soap, or use biodegradable soap.
Only wash the exterior of your car.
Cleaning the engine bay, truck cargo
area, mounted equipment, or the
undercarriage of your vehicle can
lead to harmful pollutants entering
the storm system.
Changing the way you wash your car can help protect our natural environment.
Outdoor car washing can result in harmful pollutants from soap and cleaners
entering the storm system. Our storm system flows directly to critical natural
habitats. These pollutants degrade the water quality of our streams and
endanger the wildlife that lives in or near the streams.
IN CASE OF SPILL:
If car wash wastewater does enter the storm system, we want to know!
Report spills to the Spill Hotline by calling 509.575.6077.
MADE BY: OSBORN CONSULTING, INC.
FOR THE CITY OF YAKIMA
Figure 2: Flyer
Figure 3: Social Media Survey
Figure 4: City of Yakima
Social Media Post
Figure 1: City boundary and approximate locations of three
target neighborhoods.
YAKIMA CAR WASH WASTEWATER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH (E&O) EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
City of Yakima:
Randy Meloy
509.576.6606
[email protected]
Osborn Consulting Research Team:
Aimee Navickis-Brasch, PhD, PE
509.867.3649
[email protected]
Taylor Hoffman-Ballard, PE
509.867.3650
[email protected]
Nicole Chen, EIT
206.876.7740
[email protected]
MaKenna Lindberg
425.516.7626
[email protected]
Contacts
E&O Program Description
The E&O program implemented during the study included distributing E&O materials to three specific neighborhoods, at the Central Washington State
Fair, and through social media. The E&O materials included flyers (Figure 2 on page 1), public relations via social media (Figure 3 and Figure 4 on
page 1), postcards, doorknockers (brochures), tote bags, hand sanitizer pens, and towels. The materials were used to inform residents about preferred
car washing BMPs and advertise the online survey. The preferred car washing BMPs included on the E&O materials included use a commercial car wash;
wash car on grass or gravel; use biodegradable or environmentally friendly soap; and contain soap spills immediately or call spill control hotline in the
event of a soap spill.
Results and Recommendations
Measure adoption of targeted behaviors by the target audience
A statistically significant change in awareness or adoption of targeted behavior was not measured during the study, except for a decrease in use of
commercial car washes and a decrease in awareness of at-home car washing BMPs. The decrease in use of commercial car washes may be attributed to
a national market trend caused by COVID-19 impacts. Insufficient data was able to be collected in the City of Yakima to determine whether the national
trend was occurring in Yakima. The decrease in use of commercial car washes, along with the decrease in awareness of at-home car washing BMPs is
likely due to the lower than expected number of survey responses received. The survey responses received are a representative subset (sample) of the
target audience (City of Yakima residents), and a higher sample size corresponds with a higher confidence that the survey responses received accurately
represent the target audience. The decrease in use of commercial car washes and awareness of at-home car washing BMPs likely indicates there was a
difference between the samples collected before and after the E&O program (one or both of the samples may not have fully captured the awareness and
adoption by the target audience) and does not necessarily indicate that there was an actual decrease in awareness or adoption.
Develop recommendations based on the study findings and use the recommendations to revise and implement a
modified E&O program
Based on the results of the study, recommendations have been developed to direct on-going E&O efforts in future years. The recommendations
focused on increasing the reach of the E&O program to the general public, increasing the reach of the E&O program to Spanish-speaking communities,
improving the E&O program messaging and materials, and improving general survey response rate if surveys are used to collect data in future years.
These improvements are intended to increase the awareness and adoption of preferred car washing BMPs, as well as improve the confidence/quantity
of any data collected. Two of the recommendations for the project are included in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Two Project Recommendations
Recommendation
Methods
Send E&O materials with utility bill.
E&O materials could be included as an insert with the utility bill, or link to a website with
electronic versions of the E&O materials.
Post E&O materials to webpage to serve as reference
material for the general public.
E&O materials, such as the brochure or flyer, could be posted on the City’s website or
another organization’s website to reach a wider audience.
Figure 5: Excerpt from Brochure

2022 Technical Evaluation Report for Yakima Car Wash Wastewater E&O

Summary: Eastern Washington technical evaluation report, car wash wastewater E&O effectiveness study, barriers to desired behavior, City of Yakima E&O, results and recommendations

EASTERN WASHINGTON
STORMWATER EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
YAKIMA CAR WASH WASTEWATER EDUCATION & OUTREACH
EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Study Classification:
☐ Structural BMP
☐ Operational BMP
☑ Education & Outreach
Study Objective(s):
☑ Evaluate Effectiveness
☐ Compare Effectiveness
February 2022
Prepared For:
City of Yakima
Stormwater Department
129 N. Second Street
Yakima, Washington 98901
(509) 576-6606
Prepared By:
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
101 S Stevens St, Suite 103
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 867-3654
Technical Evaluation Report
FEBRUARY 2022
Page | ii
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT PUBLICATION INFORMATION
The Technical Evaluation Report (TER), as well as the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for this
study, is available to the public on the City of Yakima website:
(https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/wastewater-treatment-plant/stormwater/).
TER AUTHORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION
Aimee Navickis-Brasch, PhD, PE
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
Engineering Manager
101 S. Stevens Street, Suite 103
Spokane, WA 99201
[email protected]
(509) 867-3654 Ext. 301
Taylor Hoffman-Ballard, PE
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
Stormwater Engineer
101 S. Stevens Street, Suite 103
Spokane, WA 99201
[email protected]
(509) 867-3654 Ext. 302
MaKenna Lindberg
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
Engineering Technician
1800 112th Avenue NE, Suite 220E
Bellevue, WA 98004
[email protected]
(425) 451-4009 Ext. 108
Nicole Chen, EIT
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
Project Engineer
1402 3rd Avenue, Suite 415
Seattle, WA 98101
[email protected]
(206) 628-9133 Ext. 232
Mark Maurer, PE, PLS
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
Senior Stormwater Engineer
101 S. Stevens Street, Suite 103
Spokane, WA 99201
[email protected]
(509) 867-3654
Technical Evaluation Report
FEBRUARY 2022
Page | iii
DOCUMENT HISTORY
This study was conducted following the QAPP which can be accessed at the link on the previous page. The
study began in July 2021 and the last data were collected in October 2021. Data collection was completed
in November of 2021 and the final TER was submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology in
February 2022.
Technical Evaluation Report
FEBRUARY 2022
Page | iv
DISTRIBUTION LIST
This section includes the distribution list for each party who received a copy of the TER.
Name
Title
Organization
Contact Information:
E-mail and Telephone
Randy Meloy
Surface Water Engineer
City of Yakima
[email protected]
(509) 576-6606
Jack Wells
Natural Resource Specialist
Yakima County
[email protected]
(509) 574-2350
Erin Barnett
Stormwater Code Enforcement
City of Selah
[email protected]
(509) 698-7331
Raul Sanchez
Wastewater and Storm Supervisor
City of Sunnyside
[email protected]
(509) 836-6566
David Dominguez
Civil Engineer
City of Union Gap
[email protected]
(509) 249-9211
Jeff Wiemer
Regional Stormwater Coordinator
Asotin County, City of
Asotin, and
City of Clarkston
[email protected]
(509)-243-2071 Ext. 1430
Bill Aukett
Stormwater Program Manager
City of Moses Lake
[email protected]
(509) 764-3792
Andrea Jedel
Permit Manager
Washington State
Department of Ecology
[email protected]
(509) 575-2807
Brandi Lubliner
Water Quality Program Quality
Assurance Reviewer
Washington State
Department of Ecology
[email protected]
(360) 407-7140
Aimee Navickis-Brasch
Engineering Manager
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
[email protected]
(509) 867-3654 Ext. 301
Taylor Hoffman-Ballard
Stormwater Engineer
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
[email protected]
(509) 867-3654 Ext. 302
MaKenna Lindberg
Engineering Technician
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
[email protected]
(425) 451-4009 Ext. 108
Nicole Chen
Project Engineer
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
[email protected]
(206) 628-9133 Ext. 232
Mark Maurer
Senior Engineer
Osborn Consulting, Inc.
[email protected]
(509) 867-3654
Technical Evaluation Report
FEBRUARY 2022
Page | v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
2.0
BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
2.1
INTRODUCTION TO THE E&O PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
2.2
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.3
PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
2.4
PROJECT OVERVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
2.5
STUDY LOCATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
3.0
SAMPLING PROCEDURES …………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
3.1
TYPES OF DATA COLLECTED ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
3.2
SAMPLING COLLECTION PROCESS ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
3.2.1
SOP Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
3.2.2
Audit Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
4.0
DATA QUALITY AND ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………. 11
4.1
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
4.1.1
Data Verification ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
4.1.2
Data Usability Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
5.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………………………… 14
5.1
OBJECTIVE #1: UNDERSTAND TO WHAT EXTENT THE TARGET AUDIENCE CURRENTLY USES PREFERRED CAR
WASHING BMPS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
5.1.1
Baseline Survey Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
5.1.2
Baseline Observational Results ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
5.2
OBJECTIVE #2: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN E&O PROGRAM TARGETING ADOPTION OF PREFERRED CAR
WASHING BMPS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
5.3
OBJECTIVE #3: MEASURE ADOPTION OF TARGETED BEHAVIORS BY THE TARGET AUDIENCE ………………….. 24
5.3.1
Follow-Up Survey Results and Comparison ……………………………………………………………………………… 25
5.3.2
Follow-Up Observational Results ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
5.3.3
Commercial Car Wash Usage Results ……………………………………………………………………………………… 32
5.3.4
Results of Statistical Comparison ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
5.4
OBJECTIVE #4: DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE STUDY FINDINGS AND USE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REVISE AND IMPLEMENT A MODIFIED E&O PROGRAM ………………………………………………. 33
6.0
CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
7.0
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 40
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43
APPENDIX B: OBSERVATIONAL DATA FORM …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
APPENDIX C: DATA ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Appendix C.1: Survey Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
Appendix C.2: Observational Data Record …………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
Appendix C.3: Statistical Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
APPENDIX D: DATA QUALITY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 49
Appendix D.1 Assessment of MPCs and DQIs …………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Appendix D.2 Results of Audit …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Technical Evaluation Report
FEBRUARY 2022
Page | vi
Appendix D.3 SOP Deviations Documentation …………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
Appendix D.4 Results of Data Verification ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
APPENDIX E: CAR WASH USAGE DATA COLLECTED ………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF QAPP REVISIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………… 55
APPENDIX G: REVISED E&O MATERIALS AND SURVEY ……………………………………………………………………………… 56
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES:
Table 2-1: E&O Materials and the Distribution of Materials ……………………………………………………………………………. 4
Figure 2-1 Approximate Locations of Local Commercial Car Washes and Target Neighborhoods ……………………….. 7
Table 2-2 Study Neighborhood Locations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Table 3-1 Data Needed to Meet Objectives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
Table 4-1 Data Verification Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Table 4-2 Data Usability Assessment Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Table 4-3 Flag Data Codes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Figure 5-1 Where Respondents Reside ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
Figure 5-2 Awareness of Best Car Washing Location (Baseline Responses Only) …………………………………………….. 17
Figure 5-3 Awareness of Car Washing Wastewater Impacts (Baseline Responses Only)……………………………………. 17
Figure 5-4 Awareness of Car Washing BMPs (Baseline Responses Only) ……………………………………………………….. 18
Figure 5-5 Adoption of Preferred Car Washing Location (Baseline Responses Only) ……………………………………….. 20
Figure 5-6 Frequency of Preferred Car Washing BMP Adoption (Baseline Responses Only) …………………………….. 20
Table 5-1 Likert Scales for Car washing BMPs and Non-Environmentally Friendly BMPs ……………………………….. 21
Figure 5-7 Barriers Identified to Adopting Car Wash BMPs (Baseline Responses Only) …………………………………… 22
Table 5-2 E&O Program Schedule During Study ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
Figure 5-8 Question Used to Distinguish Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Responses ……………………………………….. 25
Figure 5-9 Awareness of Best Car Washing Location ……………………………………………………………………………………. 26
Figure 5-10 Awareness of Car Washing Wastewater Impacts…………………………………………………………………………. 27
Figure 5-11 Awareness of Car Washing BMPs …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
Figure 5-12 Adoption of Preferred Car Washing Location …………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Figure 5-13 Frequency of Preferred Car Washing BMP Adoption ………………………………………………………………….. 30
Figure 5-14 Barriers Identified to Adopting Car Wash BMPs ………………………………………………………………………… 31
Table 5-3 Awareness & Adoption Statistical Comparison Results ………………………………………………………………….. 33
Technical Evaluation Report
FEBRUARY 2022
Page | 1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4s) Phase II Permit (the Permit) for Eastern Washington (EWA), jurisdictions such as the City
of Yakima, Washington (City of Yakima), are required to evaluate the effectiveness of a Permit-required
stormwater management program (S8 Monitoring and Assessment) and evaluate their education and
outreach (E&O) programs (S5.B.1.b). The study presented in this document was designed to meet the
requirements of both Permit requirements.
The City of Yakima chose to focus their E&O program to target the car washing behaviors of City of
Yakima residents who drive one or more vehicles (the…

2023 QAPP for Private Residential BMP Owner Awareness Effectiveness Study

Summary: BMP awareness survey, Eastern Washington homeowner survey, Operations and Maintenance awareness, Homeowner awareness of stormwater BMPs,

Eastern Washington Stormwater Effectiveness Studies
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Private Residential BMP Owner Awareness Effectiveness
Study
Study Classification: ï‚£
Structural BMP ï‚£
Operational BMP ✓Education & Outreach
Study Objective:
✓Evaluate Effectiveness 
Compare Effectiveness
Prepared By:
Kelsey Grover, Stormwater Technician
Public Works Department
1350 McKittrick Street, Suite A
Wenatchee, WA 98801
509-888-3273
Proposal Public Information
The proposal will be available on the regional Wenatchee Valley Stormwater Technical Advisory
Committee (WVSTAC) webpage hosted by the City of Wenatchee,
www.wenatcheewa.gov/wvstac.
Proposal Author and Contact Information
Kelsey Grover, Stormwater Technician
City of Wenatchee, Public Works Department
1350 McKittrick Street, Suite A
Wenatchee, WA 98801
509-888-3273
Date 2/8/2022
Date
ity ofW~Entity
Signature Page
This section will be completed for the QAPP.
by:
Jennifer Lange, Douglas County, Partner Entity
3/12>2z
Date
Garren Melton, City of East Wenatchee, Partner Entity
<.±
Shilo Sprouse, City of~rtner Entity
Date
Andrea Jede I, Department of Ecology
Date
Brandi Lubliner, Department of Ecology
2/10/22
2/11/2022
Distribution List
Name, Title
Organization
Contact Information: Address, Telephone, E-mail
Jessica Shaw
Deputy Public Works Director-
Utilities
City of Wenatchee
1350 McKittrick, Wenatchee, WA 98801
Phone: 509-888-3235
E-Mail: [email protected]
Kelsey Grover
Stormwater Technician
City of Wenatchee
1350 McKittrick, Wenatchee, WA 98801
Phone: 509-888-3273
E-Mail: [email protected]
Jason Detamore
Environmental Manager
Chelan County
316 Washington St. Ste 402, Wenatchee WA, 98801
Phone: 509-664-6415
E-Mail: [email protected]
Garren Melton
Natural Resource Specialist
City of East
Wenatchee
271 9th St NE, Ste A, East Wenatchee, WA, 98802
Phone: 509-884-1829
E-Mail: [email protected]
Jennifer Lange, PE
Assistant County Engineer
Douglas County
140 19th St NW, Ste A, East Wenatchee WA, 98802
Phone: 509-884-7173
E-Mail: [email protected]
Shilo Sprouse
Stormwater Services Program
Manager
City of Pullman
325 Paradise St, Pullman, WA, 99163
Phone: 509-338-3314
E-Mail: [email protected]
Andrea Jedel
Municipal Stormwater Permit
Implementation Planner
WA Department of
Ecology
1250 W. Alder St. Union Gap, WA 98903-0009
Phone: 509-575-2807
E-Mail: [email protected]
Brandi Lubliner, PE
QA Coordinator
WA Department of
Ecology
PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA. 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-7140
E-Mail: [email protected]
Doug Howie, PE
WA Department of
Ecology
PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA. 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-6444
E-Mail: [email protected]
Abbey Stockwell
WA Department of
Ecology
PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA. 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-7221
E-Mail: [email protected]
1.0
Table of Contents
Signature Page ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Distribution List ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
1.0 Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.0
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
3.0
Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
3.1 Problem Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
3.2 Results of Prior Studies ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
3.3 Regulatory Requirements …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
4.0
Project Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
4.1 Study Goal………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
4.2 Study Description and Objectives …………………………………………………………………………………… 10
4.3 Study Location and/or Target Population ………………………………………………………………………… 10
4.4 Data Needed to Meet Objectives …………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
4.5 Tasks Required to Conduct Study …………………………………………………………………………………… 11
4.6 Potential Constraints ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
4.7 Considered Mitigation Approach Alternatives …………………………………………………………………. 12
5.0
Organization and Schedule ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
5.1 Key Project Team Members: Roles and Responsibilities ……………………………………………………… 13
5.2 Project Schedule ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
5.3 Budget and Funding Sources ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
6.0
Quality Objectives …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
7.0
Experimental Design …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
7.1 Study Design …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
7.2 Process for Selecting the Test-Site and Target Population ……………………………………………. 20
7.3 Type of Data being Collected ……………………………………………………………………………………… 21
7.4 Other Education & Outreach Programs ……………………………………………………………………. 21
8.0
Instrument Design and Development …………………………………………………………………………………. 21
8.1 Instrument Design …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
8.2 Procedures for Collecting Data……………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
8.3 Instrument Validation ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
9.0
Quality Control…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
9.1 Study QC Procedures …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
9.2 Corrective Action ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
10.0 Data Management Plan Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………… 23
10.1 Data Identification …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
10.2 Data Recording & Reporting Requirements …………………………………………………………………….. 24
10.3 Procedures for Missing Data ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
10.4 Acceptance Criteria for Existing Data …………………………………………………………………………….. 24
11.0 Audits ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
12.0 Data Verification and Usability Assessment …………………………………………………………………………. 26
12.1 Data Verification …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
12.2 Data Usability Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
13.0 Data Analysis Methods ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
13.1 Hypothesis Testing ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
13.2 Quantitative & Qualitative Data Analysis Methods ………………………………………………………….. 27
13.3 Data Presentation Methods …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
14.0 Reporting …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
14.1 Final Reporting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
14.2 Dissemination of Project Documents ………………………………………………………………………………. 28
15.0 References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
16.0 Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30
List of Figures
Figure1: Wenatchee Valley Municipal Stormwater Boundaries ……………………………………………11
List of Tables
Table 1: Potential Constraints and Subsequent Mitigation Approach ……………………………………………….. 12
Table 2: Key Project Team Members: Roles and Responsibilities ……………………………………………………. 13
Table 3: Study Timeline ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Table 4: Study Cost Breakdown ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
Table 5: Data Quality Indicators and Measurement Performance Criteria …………………………………………. 17
Table 6: Types of Data Being Collected ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
Table 7: Audits ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
Table 8: Data Verifier Tasks ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
Table 9: Effectiveness Study Reporting…………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
2.0
Executive Summary
In 2011, the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Permit) began requiring
permittees to develop and implement a stormwater management program element to control
stormwater runoff from new and re-development projects through the usage of post-construction
stormwater best management practices (BMPs). The Permit also required permittees to establish
a mechanism to ensure privately owned post-construction BMPs are maintained to continue to
achieve water quality and environmental benefits. The goal of the proposed study is to assess the
effectiveness of the regulatory mechanism, the recorded Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
agreement, at informing owners about BMPs and their responsibility to maintain BMPs. The
present study involves a survey of residents in single family homes in subdivisions which were
one acre or larger and have one or more post-construction stormwater BMPs serving more than
one home located within the municipal permit boundaries of the Wenatchee Valley. The study
will assess BMP owner awareness between a test group consisting of subdivisions which were
required to implement an O&M agreement and a control group consisting of subdivisions built
prior to the requirement to implement an O&M agreement. The survey will be used to evaluate
the knowledge, attitude, and practices of residents in subdivisions with an O&M agreement and
those without an O&M agreement to assess their overall awareness of their BMPs and
responsibility to maintain BMPs. The study results are anticipated to show how effective the
O&M agreement is at informing residents of their ownership and responsibility to maintain
BMPs. The study results will be presented in a final report presenting trends in owner awareness
for stormwater BMPs and will provide recommendations for improving education and outreach
efforts for private BMP owners.
3.0
Background
Increasingly dense development within urbanized areas has required improved methods to
manage stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. The use of pipes and catch basins was
adequate for a time, but rapid urbanization, persistent degradation of natural landscapes, water
quality, and climate change-related increases in the amount and intensity of rainfall have all
made stormwater management a high priority. To prevent or minimize water quality impacts of
new and redevelopment projects, Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater permittees
were required to develop, implement, and enforce a program to address post-construction
stormwater runoff from public and private projects beginning in 2011. The minimum
requirement set forth by the Permit was a regulatory mechanism for projects meeting a one-acre
area threshold to manage a percentage of stormwater onsite using post-construction best
management practices (BMPs). Permitted jurisdictions were also required to implement a
mechanism to ensure long-term maintenance of the BMPs.
The Permit states that project proponents shall ensure implementation of long-term operation and
maintenance standards to protect water quality and reduce the…

2014 – 2019 Spokane County BSM Thickness Study Fact Sheet

Summary: Eastern Washington, effectiveness studies, Bioretention soil media thickness effectiveness study fact sheet, Spokane County and Gonzaga University BSM thickness effectiveness, pollutant removal efficiency, future actions for BSM studies, BSM infiltration rates,

Gonzaga Bioretention Soil Media
Thickness Effectiveness Study
GONZAGA BIORETENTION SOIL MEDIA THICKNESS EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Study Goal
Bioretention research by others suggests that TSS and dissolved metals removal typically occurs in the top 6-inches of the bioretention
soil media (BSM) mix. Additionally, studies have indicated that the Ecology 60:40 BSM leaches nutrients and that the higher the content
of compost the higher the concentration of nutrients leaching from the media. Because of these findings and a desire to reduce the cost
of constructing bioretention BMPs if the additional BSM depth is not needed, there is an interest in reducing the BSM depth from the
18-inches required by Ecology to a 12-inch depth. The goal of this study was to justify development of a modified bioretention BMP that
uses the existing 60:40 bioretention mix to a minimum depth of 12-inches (rather than the current required 18-inch depth) for providing
treatment of TSS and dissolved metals. Effectiveness evaluation of the modified BMP will be based upon:
 Pollutant removal efficiency of the 60:40 BSM mix at a depth of 18-inches compared to 12-inches.
 Change in the infiltration rate and saturated hydraulic conductivity of each cell over the duration of the study.
 Achievement of treatment performance goals for basic (TSS), metals (dissolved Cu and Zn), and oils, by comparing study results to
the Technology Assessment Protocol Ecology (TAPE) treatment performance goals.
Study Description
The goal of this study was accomplished through field monitoring and sampling following the TAPE protocol as summarized
in the Eastern Washington Effectiveness Study QAPP Template for Structural BMPs. The test site consists of a dual-cell bioretention
area that contains 18-inches and 12-inches of the 60:40 mix in each cell shown in Figure 1. The test site was constructed in 2014,
the automated monitoring equipment was installed in 2017, and field testing was conducted from Fall 2018 to Spring 2021.
The automated monitoring system collected flow weighted composite samples, rainfall depth, and flow rate (influent and effluent).
The primary work associated with field monitoring and sampling included: daily monitoring of the weather forecast to identify when
qualifying rainfall events are likely to occur, operating and maintaining the equipment, collecting three composite flow weighted water
quality samples for each rainfall event (one influent and two effluent), as well as duplicates for 10% of the samples, delivering the samples
to the lab for analysis, and downloading data from the data logger (precipitation depth and runoff flow rate). The influent and effluent
water quality samples were tested for TSS, dissolved metals (Cu and Zn), total phosphorus, oils, PSD, Orthophosphate, Hardness, and
pH. Samples of the BSM mix were collected when the site was constructed and from the ponds in 2018. The samples were submitted
to an Ecology certified lab for analysis to evaluate changes in the physiochemical properties. Data was collected from 17 qualifying and
potentially qualifying storm events over two wet seasons starting in 2018.
Figure 1. Cross Section of the Bioretention Cells: 12-inch BSM (cell 1) and 18-inch BSM (cell 2)
Cell 1
Cell 2
Study Location
The test site location is in the City of Spokane on the campus of Gonzaga University located south of the Rudolf Fitness Center, east of
Luger Soccer Field, and north of the Law School. The location of the test site is shown in Figure 2. The contributing basin area is 0.53 acres
of a paved parking lot and 0.08 acres from sidewalks and the access road to the parking lot.
Study Objectives
Objective 1: Determine the pollutant removal efficiency of the BSM mix at a depth of 18-inches compared to 12-inches.
No statistically significant difference was noted between the treatment performance of the 18-inch BSM depth compared to the
12-inch depth for TSS, dissolved copper, or dissolved zinc. A statistically significant difference was measured for leaching of TP;
the 18-inch BSM depth leached more TP (-381%) on average than the 12-inch depth (-198%). As shown in Table A, TSS and dissolved
zinc were removed by the cells, while dissolved copper was observed to be leaching from the cells. Oils were not evaluated as the
concentrations were not detectable. The physiochemical properties of the BSM were measured when the cells were constructed
and approximately five years after installation. A comparison of the data indicates that copper was not being retained in the BSM,
while zinc was retained. The measurements of copper and zinc retained in the BSM support the water quality findings that dissolved
copper is leaching from the BSM while dissolved zinc is removed by the BSM shown in Table A.
Objective 2: Determine whether the TAPE treatment performance goals were achieved.
The bootstrap statistical method was used to assess whether the TAPE treatment performance goals were met by the 12-inch
cell and 18-inch cell shown in Table A. Both the 12-inch cell and 18-inch cell met TAPE treatment performance goals for TSS
(influent concentrations were below 100 mg/L), but neither met the treatment performance goals for dissolved copper and zinc.
The treatment performance goal for oils was not assessed due to the number of non-detect results received during the study.
Objective 3: Determine change in infiltration rate and saturated hydraulic conductivity of each cell over study duration.
Changes in the infiltration rate and saturated hydraulic conductivity of each cell was measured by performing modified falling
head tests and examining effluent flow rates, respectively. Saturated hydraulic conductivity decreased for both cells (60% for the
12-inch cell and 78% for the 18-inch cell) from 2014 to 2019. Results from the infiltration testing indicate that the rate appeared
to slightly increase from 2018 to 2020. These results may be due to the freeze thaw cycle, which has been reported to increase
infiltration rates over time. However, infiltration rate data was only collected following the installation of the monitoring equipment
in 2017, missing the initial years after the BSM was installed and when infiltration rates are reportedly highest. It is possible that
if a similar number of storm events were collected prior to the installation of the equipment as were collected after installation,
the trend in infiltration rate would show a decline over the lifespan of the bioretention cells (consistent with the saturated hydraulic
conductivity results).
Future Action Recommendations
Recommendations for future actions focused on additional research based on the findings from this study. Specifically, analysis
of influent concentrations in EWA, research of the effects of cold climate conditions on bioretention treatment and infiltration
performance, development of BSM to reduce leaching and support non-vegetated cells, revaluation of qualifying storm event
guidelines (minimum influent concentration limit and storm duration criteria) that are better suited for EWA conditions, and research
alternative PSD laboratory analysis methods that maybe more readily available than the method defined in TAPE.
GONZAGA BIORETENTION SOIL MEDIA THICKNESS EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
E Spokane Falls Blvd
E Trent Ave
N Hamilton St
US 395
Table A. Summary of Results
Pollutant
Percent
Reduction
Statistically
Significant
Difference?
Treatment
Goals
Achieved?
12-inch
18-inch
TSS
74.5%
71.1%
Yes
Dissolved
Copper
-50.3%
-93.4%
Dissolved
Zinc
39.5%
34.9%
-198.4%
-381.4%
Yes
N/A
LEAD ENTITY:
Spokane County
CONTRIBUTING ENTITY:
City of Pullman
City of Moses Lake
City of Pasco
City of Spokane Valley
City of Yakima
Wall Walla County
Yakima County
This study was conducted to
support the lead and participating
entities in meeting NPDES MS4
Phase II Permit requirements for S8.
Monitoring & Assessment.
Figure 2. Summary of Influent & Effluent
Concentrations Statistical Comparison