Skip to content

2023 Fact sheet for Non-vegetated Filtration Swale Effectiveness Study

Summary: Fact sheet, non-vegetated filter strip, eastern washington, study results non-vegetated filtration strip, BMP efficacy study results, West Richland study fact sheet

NON-VEGETATED FILTRATION SWALE EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Non-Vegetated Filtration Swale Effectiveness Study | Fact Sheet
Study Goal and Background
The goal of this study was to evaluate the
effectiveness of a non-vegetated filtration swale
BMP. Effectiveness was based upon whether the
BMP could provide basic treatment (80% reduction
of total suspended solids) in accordance with
Ecology treatment performance goals.
Constructing a non-vegetated filtration swale is
highly desirable for locations with hot and dry
summers or in areas where dry periods cause
grass to become dormant or where supplemental
water is needed to establish vegetation. A non-
vegetated BMP will benefit multiple Washington
State Permittees by providing a BMP option that
does not require irrigation. This fact sheet is a
summary of the information found in the Non-
Vegetated Filtration Swale Effectiveness Study
Technical Evaluation Report.
Study Description
The study goal was accomplished through controlled tests conducted at a test site in West
Richland. Four swale design alternatives (alternatives) were tested in 200-foot-long swales at
the site followed by one final swale design alternative (final alternative) as shown in Figure 1.
The final alternative was selected based on the treatment performance of the four alternatives.
A cross-section of the final alternative swale design is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Final Swale Alternative Cross Section
Figure 1: TEST SWALE AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS
NON-VEGETATED FILTRATION SWALE EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Non-Vegetated Filtration Swale Effectiveness Study | Fact Sheet
Treatment performance was measured from
samples collected from each alternative, which
were analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS). An
influent distribution system mixed and pumped
synthetic stormwater to the swale at the design
flow rate to simulate a storm event (as shown in
Figure 3).
As the synthetic stormwater flowed through the
swale, grab samples (shown in Figure 4) were
collected in eight sample locations that were
spaced at 25-foot increments along the swale.
After each simulated storm event, an amount of
TSS equivalent to one year of loading was
distributed to the swale to stress-test the swale
and determine when the swale would require
maintenance.
The travel time for stormwater to flow through the
swale was recorded at each sample location. The
measured travel time was then used to estimate the velocity of flow through the treatment
layer. This information was used to inform the velocity limits for the swale design guidance.
FIGURE 3: INFLUENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AT TEST SWALE
Figure 4: GRAB SAMPLE FROM TEST SWALE
NON-VEGETATED FILTRATION SWALE EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Non-Vegetated Filtration Swale Effectiveness Study | Fact Sheet
Study Location
The test site location was south of the City of West Richland Public Works Building and adjacent
to a gravel parking lot (as seen in Figure 5). An existing 430-foot-long swale at the test site was
retrofitted into the two 200-foot-long test swales. The controlled tests were conducted during
the dry season; therefore, no runoff from the gravel parking lot contributed to the test swales.
Results
The initial percent removals for the final alternative indicated that 84.5–87.8% removal of TSS
was achieved for the first simulated year, at the sample location at 200 feet from the start of
the swale. However, percent removal decreased for the following two simulated years, which
was likely due to modifications to the swale needed near the last sample port, due to observed
erosion from a grade break immediately downstream of the swale. As a result, the samples
collected at the last sample port (200 feet) were discarded and statistical trendline analysis
was used to determine how the swale would have performed if the swale modifications had
not occurred. This analysis is shown in Table 1 and indicates that the swale met performance
goals for the first two years. Since the treatment performance dropped below 80% for the third
year, it is likely that maintenance would need to be performed sometime around the third year
to restore treatment performance. Further testing needs to be done to confirm the
maintenance procedures and schedule.
Figure 5: Test Swale Location
NON-VEGETATED FILTRATION SWALE EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Non-Vegetated Filtration Swale Effectiveness Study | Fact Sheet
Table 1: Final Alternative Water Quality Results from Trendline Analysis1
Location in Swale
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
25 FEET
58.5%
-13.2%
11.9%
50 FEET
62.8%
1.00%
21.4%
75 FEET
67.0%
15.3%
30.9%
100 FEET
71.3%
29.5%
40.4%
125 FEET
75.5%
43.8%
49.9%
150 FEET
79.8%
58.0%
59.4%
175 FEET
84.0%
72.3%
68.9%
200 FEET
88.3%
86.5%
78.4%
1. Results shown are concentrations developed using trendlines.
The percent removal results in Table 1 were compared to the TAPE treatment performance
goals for TSS using the bootstrap statistical analysis to predict the treatment performance of
the swale. Years 1 and 2 represent the performance of the swale before maintenance is needed.
However, only two data points were available, causing the result of the bootstrap analysis to
be equivalent to the lower of the two removal efficiencies. The evaluation of removal
efficiencies calculated for years 1–3 added one data point and indicated the swale would meet
the TAPE treatment performance goal for all three simulated years.
The measured travel time for flow to travel through the
swale was 50 minutes, from which a design velocity of
0.066 ft/sec was calculated. It is anticipated that
treatment will be provided by a swale 200 feet long if the
velocity and residence time are less than or equal to the
values measured during the study.
Future Action Recommendations
Submit the swale for Conditional Level Use
Designation, so the performance of the swale can be
further evaluated in the field for actual storm events.
Perform additional field testing to understand
effective maintenance activities to restore the swale
treatment performance every two to three years and
the frequency at which more minor action items
such as removal of sediment and debris from inlets,
weed control, etc., should be performed.
Perform additional field testing to understand the impact that a catch basin or forebay
at the inlet would have on treatment performance and maintenance cycle of the swale.
Lead Entity:
City of West Richland
Contributing Entity:
City of Richland
City of Kennewick
City of Pasco
City of Walla Walla
Walla Walla County
City of Moses Lake
City of Pullman
Idaho Dept. of Environmental
Quality
Washington Dept. of Ecology
This
study
was
conducted
support the lead and participating
entities in meeting NPDES MS4
Phase II Permit Requirements for S8
Monitoring and Assessment.

Erosion and Sediment Control For Commercial and Residential Construction

Erosion and Sediment Control for Commerical and Residential Construction Protect Water Each municipality has an adopted Illicit Discharge Program describing allowable and prohibited discharges to the city’s storm drain system. Contractors/Owners found discharging pollutants to the city’s storm drain system are subject to enforcement procedures as described within each city’s Municipal Code. Penalties can range from civil infraction (monetary ne) to a criminal citation. When sediment is carried osite by rain, vehicles, wind, and materials placed on the roadway, the sediment and pollutants within can harm lakes, streams, wetlands and groundwater or plug a storm system causing ooding. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that a one-acre construction site can lose as much as 20 to 150 tons of soil every year due to erosion and stormwater runo. Lot Development A Lot Development is a connected area where separate construction activities may happen at dierent times, on dierent schedules, under one proposed plan or independent of a proposed plan. Some Lot Development may be governed by a Construction General Stormwater Permit established at the time of larger development initial construction. Erosion and sediment control is required regardless of the size or shape of a project. Whether it is a single home, landscaping improvements, oce building, or large subdivision, it is required to keep water, dirt, and other construction material on site. Examples of Lot Development include: • Individual home construction • Home or landscaping improvements • Commercial/industrial sites • Phased projects What can you do to protect receiving waters from pollution? See the 10 steps to Stormwater Pollution Prevention inside of this pamphlet to learn ways to minimize sediment from leaving your construction site. By selecting and applying the appropriate steps, you can help keep our water clean! Why is this Required? Owners or operators of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in Eastern Washington are required by the State to be covered under the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. The Phase II permit requires the owners/operators to up hold the requirements within the permit including compliance with the federal Clean Water Act, federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the state Water Pollution Control Act. This applies to your project. City Municipal Code Illicit Discharge Codes: City of West Richland: Chapter 13.82 City of Richland: Chapter 16.05 City of Kennewick: Chapter 14.29 City of Pasco: Chapter 13.80 Common BMPs Chapter 7.3 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington provides standards and specications for Construction Site Best Management Practices for runo prevention. Common BMPs are: • BMP C105E: Stabilized Construction Access • BMP C151E: Concrete Handling • BMP C152E: Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention • BMP C154E: Concrete Washout Area • BMP C220E: Inlet Protection • BMP C233E: Silt Fence Check local governing agency for specic erosion and sediment control requirements. www.ci.richland.wa.us Spill Response: (509) 942-7480 City of Richland www.pasco-wa.gov Spill Response: (509) 543-5777 City of Pasco www.westrichland.org Spill Response: (509) 967-5434 City of West Richland www.go2kennewick.com Spill Response: (509) 585-4419 City of Kennewick EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RICHLAND | KENNEWICK | PASCO | WEST RICHLAND RICHLAND | KENNEWICK | PASCO | WEST RICHLAND Immediately stabilize exposed portions of the site with rock, mulch or hydro-seed whenever construction work will stop for 14 or more days, even if work is only temporarily stopped. Remember, nal stabilization is required prior to terminating permit coverage. Keep in mind that temporary or permanent stabilization must be completed within 7 days if your project is within 1 mile of a special or impaired water. Site Stabilization Keep a copy of your complete and up-to-date SWPPP and/or Erosion and Sediment Control Plan showing where each BMP is or will be installed. If required, records of the site inspections completed by a trained inspector shall be on site and easily available. Keep an Up-to-Date Copy of Your SWPPP on Site Designate a leak-proof basin lined with plastic for washing out used concrete and stucco containers. Never wash excess stucco or concrete residue down a storm drain or into a stream! Install a Concrete/Stucco Washout Basin Minimize sediment track out from vehicles exiting your site by maintaining an exit pad made of crushed rock spread over geotextile fabric, a shaker rack, or a wash rack at the construction site exit. If sediment track-out occurs, sweep and remove deposited sediment within 24 hours of discovery or earlier if rain is expected. Never wash track-out to a catch basin or water body. Maintain a Stabilized Exit Pad Sediment control logs, gravel barriers, and sand or rock bags are options for eective inlet controls. Make sure to remove accumulated sediment whenever the device becomes nonfunctional. Some jurisdictions may require additional perimeter controls. Install Inlet Controls Clearly identify separate waste disposal areas on site for hazardous waste, construction waste, and domestic waste by designating with signage, and protect from run-on and runo. Designate Waste Disposal Areas Install perimeter controls such as sediment lter logs or silt fences around the downhill boundaries of your site. Make sure to remove accumulated sediment whenever it has reached halfway up the control. Some jurisdictions may require additional perimeter controls. Install Perimeter Controls on Downhill Lot Line At the end of every workday and when rain is expected, provide cover for materials that could leach pollutants. Protect Construction Materials from Run-On and Runo Operators shall try and preserve native topsoil on site unless infeasible and protect all soil storage piles from run-on and runo. For smaller stockpiles, coving the entire pile with a tarp may be sucient. Stockpile Your Soil If you will be installing inltration-based features such as rain gardens or bioswales, make sure these areas are designated as o limits to avoid compaction. Save time and money by preserving existing mature trees during construction. Preserving mature trees minimizes the amount of soil that needs to be stabilized once construction is complete, and minimizes the amount of runo during and after construction activity. Protect Any Areas Reserved for Vegetation or Inltration and Preserve Existing Trees 10 Stepsto Stormwater Pollution Prevention on Construction Sites NOTE: This graphic does not address post-construction stormwater treatment permit requirements Graphic courtesy of US EPA. www.ci.richland.wa.us Spill Response: (509) 942-7480 City of Richland www.pasco-wa.gov Spill Response: (509) 543-5777 City of Pasco www.westrichland.org Spill Response: (509) 967-5434 City of West Richland www.go2kennewick.com Spill Response: (509) 585-4419 City of Kennewick Keep water, dirt, and other construction materials on the construction site & out of the storm system

2024 – 2029 Eastern Washington Phase II Permit Deliverables Grid

Summary: EW Phase II Permit Overview, permit compliance deadlines by year,

Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit Overview – 2024 to 2029
The timeline below provides an overview of major program deadlines for implementing Permit requirements of S5 Stormwater Management Program
(SWMP) and S8 Monitoring and Assessment for Continuing City, Town, and County Permittees (By Date means “no later than…”). This is guidance only.
Table paraphrases requirements and does not include all ongoing program elements. Please see the Permit for additional details and related
requirements.
S5 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
A. Stormwater
Management
Plan
Annually update
& submit the
SWMP with
Annual Report
(S9)
-A.3.a.i activity
tracking: track #
of inspections,
follow up
actions, official
enforcement,
public ed
activities
-A.3.a.ii cost
tracking: track
the cost (or
estimate) of
development and
implementation
of each
component of
the SWMP
By March 31
(ongoing from
this year
forward):
Submit the
(estimated) cost
of development
and
implementation
of each
component of
the SWMP and
sources of
funding.
S5 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
A.5
Coordination
Ongoing
coordination
By March 31:
Submit
description of
internal
coordination
mechanisms
among
departments.
B.1 Public
Education &
Outreach
Ongoing:
Implementation
of ed & outreach
programs and
stewardship
By Dec 31:
Measure
understanding/
adoption of at
least one priority
audience in at
least one
subject area and
document how
this evaluation
process will
direct
implementation
of the ongoing
E&O program.
By Jan 1: Begin
to provide,
partner, or
promote
stewardship
opportunities.
S5 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
B.2 Public
Involvement &
Participation
Ongoing:-
Document
opportunities for
public, including
overburdened
communities,
and specifically,
highly impacted
communities, to
participate in
development of
the SWMP.
-Post SWMP and
Annual Report to
website by May
31.
By Dec
31:Document
methods used
to identify
overburdened
communities
S5 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
B.3 IDDE
Ongoing
– Maintain
mapping data
-Implement
program to
prohibit, address,
and eliminate
illicit discharges.
– Train staff
– Field screen on
average 12% of
the MS4 each
year.
-Track and
maintain records
through WQ
WebIDDE or
submit .xml
following the App
7 schema.
By March
31:Submit
locations of all
known outfalls
according to
standardized
template in the
Annual Report.
By Dec 31:Use
available,
existing data to
map tree
canopy to
support
stormwater
management on
Permittee-
owned or
operated
properties.
– Coordinate
with firefighting
agencies to be
notified when
PFAS-containing
AFFFs are used
during
emergency
firefighting
activities.
By Jan 1:Update
and implement
procedures to
minimize
discharges to
MS4 during
firefighting post-
emergency
cleanup and
disposal
activities.
By July
1:Update
ordinance or
other regulatory
mechanism in
effect, if
necessary, to
meet the
requirements of
this section.
By Dec 31:Map
tributary
conveyances to
all known
outfalls and
discharge points
with a 24''
nominal
diameter or
larger, or an
equivalent
cross-sectional
area for non-
pipe systems.
By Dec 31:Using
available,
existing data,
map
overburdened
communities in
relation to
permanent
stormwater
facilities owned
or operated by
the Permittee,
outfalls,
discharge
points, and tree
canopy on
Permittee-
owned/operated
properties.
S5 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
B.4
Construction
Site Stormwater
Runoff Control
Ongoing:
– Implement &
enforce program
to reduce
pollutants in
runoff.
– Train Staff
By June 30:
Adopt and make
effective local
program that
meets
requirements of
S5.B.4.a.i-v.
B.5 Post
Construction
Stormwater
Management for
New &
Redevelopment
Ongoing:-
Implement &
enforce program
to address
pollutants in
runoff from post-
construction
projects which
meet the
thresholds of App
– Train Staff
By July 1,
2026:Regional
Manual (serves
two or more
Permittees)
option:
Permittees
submit draft
enforceable
requirements,
technical
standards, and
manuals that
correspond to
updated in
Appendix 1 for
functional
equivalency
review by
Ecology.
By June
30:Adopt and
make effective
local program
that meets
requirements of
S5.B.5.b.i-v.
-Regional
Manual option:
adopt and make
effective local
program.
S5 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
B.6 Operations &
Maintenance
Ongoing:-
Inspect and
maintain
Permittee
owned/operated
catch basins and
stormwater
BMPs/facilities,
and regulated
stormwater
BMPs/facilities.-
Maintain updated
SWPPP at heavy
equipment,
maintenance,
and storage
facilities.
-Train Staff
Dec 31:
Inspect All
catch basins
and inlets
owned or
operated by
the Permittee,
and every two
years
thereafter.
By June
30:Review and,
as needed,
update the O&M
plan to meet the
requirements of
this section.
July 1:Develop
and implement
street sweeping
program.
Between July –
Dec:Sweep
priority areas
once
By March 31
(ongoing from
this year
forward):Report
on all items
described in
S5.B.6.b.v(a-f)
Between July-
Sept (ongoing
from this year
forward):Sweep
priority areas
once
Annually
(ongoing from
this year
forward):Sweep
priority areas 2
additional times
to the July-Sept
event at timing
determine by
Permittee.
S8 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
S8.A
Dec 31:
City and County
Permittees shall
adopt and
implement tree
canopy goals
and policies to
support
stormwater
management.
S8.B
Stormwater
Management
Program
(SWMP)
Effectiveness
and Source
Identification
Studies
If applicable,
continue to
participate in
implementation
of Ecology
approved studies
from the 2014-
2024 permit
terms.
Dec 1:Notify
Ecology in
writing,
certified with a
G19 signature,
which S8.B.3
option for
Effectiveness
and Source
Identification
Studies you'll
carry out for
this permit
term.
By Aug
15:Permittees
who selected
S8.B.3.b shall
submit their first
annual payment
in accordance
with S8.D
instructions.
S8 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
S8.C
Regional SWMP
Effectiveness
Study
(applies only to
Permittees who
choose to
coordinate with
other
Permittees in
their Urban
Area to Plan
and begin an
additional
Stormwater
Management
Program, per
S8.B.3.a)
By June 30:
Submit a brief
description of
the study, with a
list of project
participants and
their role(s) in
the study.
By June 30:
Submit a
detailed study
design proposal
to Ecology.
By Dec 31:
Submit a
completed
QAPP
By June 30:
Begin to
conduct the
study, or within
3 months of
receiving
Ecology's
approval of the
QAPP
(whichever is
later).
S8 Permit
Components
Ongoing
Program
Implementation
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
S8.E
Stormwater
Discharge
Monitoring
(applies only to
Permittees who
choose to
conduct
stormwater
discharge
monitoring, per
S8.B.3.c, in lieu
of participation
in the
effectiveness
and source
identification
studies.)
By June
30:Submit a
draft stormwater
discharge
monitoring
QAPP for review
and approval.
By August
15:Final QAPP
submitted to
Ecology, or
within 60 days of
receiving
Ecology's
comments on
the draft
(whichever is
later).
By Oct 1:Flow
monitoring shall
begin, or within
30 days of
receiving
Ecology’s final
QAPP approval
(whichever is
later).
By Oct
1:Stormwater
discharge
monitoring fully
implemented.

2024 – 2029 EW Phase II Permit Training Requirements Summary

Summary: Permit training requirements, current permit 2024-2029, deadlines for training actions, eastern washington NPDES permit MS4 Phase II

Summary:
Permit training requirements, current permit 2024-2029, deadlines for training actions, eastern washington NPDES permit MS4 Phase II

2024 – 2029 EW Phase II Training Plan Template

Summary: EW Phase II Permit training plan for stormwater management, 2024 permit training plan for EW Phase II

Summary:
EW Phase II Permit training plan for stormwater management, 2024 permit training plan for EW Phase II

Municipal Stormwater Management for Contractors Flip Book

Purpose & Disclaimer
Temporary Erosion & Sediment Control
SWPPP
TESC Tips
Site Log Book
Good Housekeeping
Prohibited Discharge
Perimeter Controls
Stabilize Site
Inlet and Outlet Protection
Establish Site Access
Low Impact Development (LID)
Why is LID important?
LID Principles
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Why are UICs Important?
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Why are BMPs important?
Common BMPs
Municipal Stormwater Codes
Resources

Landing Page for the Eastern Washington Effectiveness Studies

Summary: Landing Page for the studies

(Site Construction to begin June 2024; Sampling August 2024-September 2024)
This effectiveness study will evaluate the infiltration ability and treatment efficacy of two non-vegetated bioretention cells. to 1) determine how the infiltration behaviors of non-vegetated cells change with respect to season and in the presence of deicer, and 2) determine if the pollutant removal efficiencies are impacted with respect to variable temperature, pollutant loading rates, and pollutant species across the seasons and in the presence of deicer. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a non-traditional approach to bioretention design that would be easier to maintain and less costly to install. The study is being performed cooperatively by the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, and Spokane County.
– NOTE: Ecology review of the QAPP is not complete; therefore, the final QAPP is not yet ready to be posted.

2019 Sharp Avenue Permeable Pavement article

Summary: City of Spokane permeable pavement article, Infiltration avenue permeable pavements in Spokane, EWA permeable pavement

BMPS
Infiltration Avenue
Permeable pavements show promise in Spokane
Mark Papich, Trey George
In the City of Spokane, WA, along the northern border of the Gonzaga
University campus and just a few blocks from the Spokane River, lies Sharp
Avenue, a minor arterial street located within the City’s separated stormwater
system. The street sits above part of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie
(SVRP) Aquifer, the sole source drinking water aquifer for around a million
people in Washington and Idaho. Stormwater runoff within the City ultimately
recharges the SVRP aquifer via various infiltration pathways or discharges
directly to the Spokane River, which is listed as impaired for metals and PCBs
and has a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limit for dissolved oxygen. In
2014, the City implemented a multipronged approach to improving water quality
in the Spokane River, including the implementation of creative solutions for the
management of runoff to include infiltration. Because there is a drinking water
aquifer underlying much of the City, adequate water quality treatment is crucial
prior to any infiltration approaches used to manage stormwater.
In the last few years, the City of Spokane has focused on an integrated approach
to its infrastructure projects, working to address multiple concerns in a single
project. Sharp Avenues’ pavement had been in very poor shape, and it contrasted
against the manicured lawns and many young pedestrians of the university, and
it was perfect for an overhaul focused on stormwater management that would
provide valuable information on the effectiveness of permeable pavement
treatment of stormwater. Using an integrated approach, the project also
enhanced pedestrian safety through the addition of bump-outs at intersections,
added a center swale to manage stormwater if the permeable pavements were
insufficient, and the area was beautified with the addition of landscaping.
Spokane kicked off the project to evaluate permeable pavements in a semi-arid
environment that has hot summers with long antecedent periods between storm
events, and cold winters that often have multiple freeze-thaw cycles. The project
area is approximately four acres of impervious pavements that constitute a
section of Sharp Avenue, which has an average daily traffic count of up to 7,500
vehicles. The permeable pavements were constructed within the vehicular
traveled way on Sharp Avenue, and consist of several different cross-sections
with varying layouts.
Stormwater quality monitoring is the primary monitoring focus on the permeable
pavements, however, the durability of the various pavement sections is also of
particular interest to the City and will be used to determine viability and estimate
costs of managing the pavements citywide.
Two different layouts tested at Sharp Avenue. Left: porous hot mix asphalt. Right: porous concrete pavement in
the parking lane.
Project Construction
The construction goal was to install different layouts with the pavements to
capture performance information of each material. The City’s design engineers
developed design and cost documents for several layouts of differing pavements
for cross-sections that varied by material, layout widths, and slope direction by
location. The final design was of adjacent areas that were either full street width,
vehicle lane only, and/or bike and parking lanes, each with differing slope
directions and comprised of either porous hot mix asphalt (HMA), pervious
concrete, or standard impervious asphalt.
Underdrains constructed from PVC liners and slotted pipes were installed under
the subbase of pervious concrete and porous asphalt areas in order to capture
infiltrated stormwater and convey it to sample stations. The underdrain system
isolates native soils from the permeable pavements and subbase and allows
monitoring of stormwater that has only interacted with the materials of
construction for the pavements. Permeable pavements and underdrains were
constructed during the 2018 construction season as follows:
Pervious concrete in full lane width (25 feet wide) on the north side of Sharp
Ave from Lidgerwood Street to Astor Street.
Pervious concrete in parking and bike lane (14 feet wide) with 11 feet of run-
on on the south side of Sharp Ave from Lidgerwood Street to Astor Street.
Underdrain installed under the pervious concrete parking and bike lane.
Pervious concrete in full intersection of Sharp Ave at Astor Street.
Porous hot mix asphalt in full lane width (25 feet wide) on both sides of the
median of Sharp Ave from Addison Street to Dakota Street. Underdrain
installed under the south lane from Astor to Addison.
Porous hot mix asphalt in full intersection at Sharp Ave and Standard Street.
Stormwater Monitoring
Stormwater monitoring is being performed to determine the pollutant removal
efficiency of the pavements for typical roadway contaminants prior to infiltration
into native soils that overlie the SVRP Aquifer. Equipment for three sample
stations (one background and two for pavement underdrain effluents) were
installed in manholes and connected via piping to each of the sample sources.
The background station captures untreated runoff from the west end of the
project area, and the pavement underdrain effluent stations capture infiltrated
runoff through pervious concrete and porous asphalt pavement sections.
The stormwater monitoring goal is to collect samples for up to 12 qualifying
storm events each year, where the criteria for a qualifying storm event is a rainfall
volume of at least 0.2 inches, and an antecedent dry period of 0.05 inches of rain
or less in the previous 24 hours. Weather forecasts are monitored, and storms are
chased to collect samples, but given the semi-arid environment in Spokane, and
the long antecedent dry periods during portions of the year, monitoring 12
qualifying events has been a challenge. On several occasions, personnel and
equipment were deployed and samples collected, but the storm failed to meet the
qualifying event criteria so the data could not be used. On one occasion, a storm
event was not predicted and equipment and personnel were not deployed,
although the weather culminated in a qualifying event. Recently, public health
concerns over COVID-19 have kept sampling personnel from assembling for
storm events. Despite the challenges presented, 7 events were sampled in the first
year of monitoring, and samples from each storm event were analyzed for pH and
typical roadway contaminants, including total suspended solids (TSS), oil range
organics (ORO), diesel range organics (DRO), total phosphorus (P), as well as the
total and dissolved metals arsenic, calcium, cadmium, chromium, copper,
magnesium, lead, and zinc.
Stormwater quality trends for pH, P, and TSS trends suggest that the systems
were still stabilizing a little over a year after being constructed, but appear to
have settled down more recently. The pH trend shows that pH was elevated in
the pervious concrete effluent relative to effluent from the porous asphalt, which
is attributable to the chemical nature of curing concrete. An early spike in TSS
was observed in the pervious concrete effluent and is likely an artifact of
construction being flushed from the system. Metals data and pollutant removal
efficiency trends not presented in the above figure show similar trend behaviors.
During the first year of monitoring, testing suggests the systems were stabilizing before settling down.
The pavement systems will continue to be monitored for water quality for an
additional four years to provide a more robust data set over time, and stormwater
quality trends and pollutant removal efficiencies will be more thoroughly
addressed.
Infiltration Tests
Infiltration rate tests were performed over time at 15 locations on both pervious
concrete and porous asphalt. The infiltration rates for the porous asphalt ranged
from 52 to 691 inches per hour initially, and the rates for pervious concrete
initially ranged from 19 to 1762, each showing significant heterogeneity. Year one
data indicates that the porous asphalt infiltration rate is consistently similar over
time, whereas the pervious concrete appears to show signs of diminishing
infiltration rates with some locations near-zero infiltration. It is unclear if the
lower infiltration rates are an artifact of plugging or deterioration of the pervious
concrete. The City currently performs street sweeping with a Tymco 500x
regenerative air system vacuum sweeper twice a year to clean the surface of the
pavements, but a more rigorous cleaning method that uses a maintenance vehicle
specific to permeable pavements may be required to address the diminishing
rates of infiltration.
Durability
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a score from 0-100, where 100 would be
a road surface in perfect condition with no wear. The City’s Streets Department
has applied a PCI score to Sharp Avenue annually to track the durability. As of
Fall 2020, the porous asphalt sections have a PCI score of 82 while the remainder
of the sections, including the pervious concrete, have a PCI score of 98 or better.
The wear that has affected the PCI score occurred within the first year, and there
was no change in the scores between the last two surveys. Since the wear was not
significant and the scores remained the same from the last survey, the City is not
overly concerned with the PCI score. PCI surveys will continue indefinitely on
Sharp Avenue as it is integrated into the citywide PCI scoring program.
Learnings to Share
There were several lessons learned during the construction phase of this project.
First and foremost, selecting an appropriate location is critical. It was determined
early that the native soils in this area of the City were favorable for infiltration
and treatment, which is clearly critical for the final disposal of stormwater. In
addition, having a single property owner/stakeholder (i.e. Gonzaga University)
with multiple entrance/exit points and few dry utility connections simplified
construction immensely. Specifically, the ability to keep vehicles and equipment
off of the permeable pavements during construction and to minimize the in and
out traffic as much as possible were paramount to a successful install on
schedule.
Since completion of construction, City teams have worked to evaluate the
effectiveness of the permeable pavements on Sharp Avenue and use its lessons to
plan future green infrastructure projects. The end goal is to minimize stormwater
discharges to the river and provide long-term value to the community. The
positive status of the project to date is due to City staff communicating effectively
Infiltration rates for the porous asphalt and pervious concrete over the first year.
Source URL: https://www.stormwater.com/bmps/article/21203016/infiltration-avenueprint
across departments, and being committed to delivering a high-quality product.
For example, the designers identified construction materials and methods that
would ensure the project was constructible, that the pavement layout capitalized
on the best use of permeable materials, and identified the best locations for
sampling stations. The Street’s Department has adopted a non-standard
maintenance approach for leaf removal to avoid clogging the pavements and use
a rubber-bit snowplow to prevent damaging them. The sewer maintenance crew
and inspectors have stepped out of their comfort zone to learn new skill sets to
collect data and perform inspections. The wastewater management sampling
team designed and installed the sample collection train, and have added Sharp
Avenue to their routine list of sites to prepare for when eagerly chasing storms. It
takes a village.
The City of Spokane will continue to monitor the permeable pavements for an
additional four years and will report the observations to the Washington State
Department of Ecology in an Effectiveness Study report. Data is also available to
the public on Ecology’s Environmental Information Management System website
at www.apps.ecology.wa.gov/eim/search/default.aspx.
Mark Papich, PE, is a senior engineer in the City of Spokane’s Integrated
Capital Management Department and is responsible for capital project scoping,
funding, and programming the City’s utility projects. Papich has designed and
programmed water, sewer, and stormwater capital projects, following projects
from inception to completion of construction. James "Trey" Geroge III is an
environmental analyst for the City of Spokane where he is responsible for
ensuring that the City meets the conditions of its’ Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit by engaging with interdepartmental city personnel,
coordinating with other regional permittees, and interacting with local
agencies and regulators.

2023 Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm Garden Pollutant Removal Summary

Summary: Biochar amended storm garden efficacy study, pollution removal in a storm garden amended with biochar, efficacy of biochar amendment in storm garden, cross section of biochar swale, pollution removal rates

Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm
Garden Pollutant Removal Efficacy
Effectiveness Study
Interstitial Data Summary Report
September 2023
Prepared By:
City of Spokane
Wastewater Management Department
Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm Garden Effectiveness Study
page 1 of 6
Introduction
The urban environment is a source of pollutants that stormwater runoff picks up and ultimately carries
with it along its flow path to a receiving water body. Typical pollutants from an urban environment
include phosphate and nitrate (nutrients), copper and zinc (heavy metals), pesticides and cleaners (toxic
chemicals), car fluids (oils and fuels), and sediment (total suspended solids) that are generated by routine
human activities. Without appropriate stormwater management, the pollutants can be transported into
the Spokane River and the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie (SVRP) Aquifer via stormwater runoff. The
Spokane River is listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 303d list of impaired water
bodies for heavy metals and nutrient impacts, and the SVRP Aquifer is the major drinking water source
for the region.
Low impact development (LID) methods include the construction of structural best management
practices (i.e. bioretention/bioinfiltration facilities) capture and treat stormwater runoff. Bioretention
and bioinfiltration facilities (stormwater treatment facilities) are typically comprised plants and
engineered soil mixtures that are designed to remove typical urban pollutants from stormwater prior to
infiltration or discharge through an outfall. Regional LID guidance and Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) stormwater manuals prescribe a standard soil mixture of sandy soils and compost for
stormwater facility soils for structural best management practices (BMPs). However, recent research
has suggested that phosphorus, nitrogen, and copper can leach from the compost component of
bioretention soil mixes.
Biochar is a form of charcoal that is the lightweight black residue of carbon and ashes that remains after
the pyrolysis of a biomass. It is a carbon-rich material produced from thermal decomposition of biomass
at elevated temperatures with little or no oxygen. Biochar biomass originates from a multitude of
different feed stocks, such as wood or grass, and its’ high surface area and porosity are desirable
characteristics for capturing pollutants, similar to activated carbon.
Stormwater treatment facilities (storm gardens) with the inclusion of biochar in the engineered soil were
constructed on W. Garland Avenue in the City of Spokane in 2014. Monitoring of the stormwater at the
storm gardens began in 2015 in order to study the stormwater treatment potential for urban stormwater
pollutants by the biochar soil mix. To determine the treatment potential of the biochar amended soil
mix, stormwater is sampled before, and after, it interacts with the engineered soil, and the results are
compared in order determine the extent to which pollutants are captured by the soil media.
The Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit issued by Ecology is the regulatory
document that dictates the stormwater management requirements in the City of Spokane. In order to
satisfy the conditions of Section S8.A of the 2014 issuance of the permit, the Garland Avenue storm
garden site was selected to be an effectiveness study. The Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm
Garden Pollutant Removal Efficacy effectiveness study Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was
approved by Ecology in March 2019, and stormwater monitoring commenced with the May 2019
sampling event accordingly. Stormwater monitoring for the Garland Avenue Storm Garden effectiveness
study will be performed through the spring of 2024.
Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm Garden Effectiveness Study
page 2 of 6
Project Description
The Garland Avenue Storm Garden effectiveness study site is comprised of a storm garden installed in
the public right of way planting strip (area between the curb line and the sidewalk) on W. Garland Avenue
near the intersection of N. Belt Street. The storm garden is being monitored to determine the treatment
potential of a biochar amended bioretention soil mix for typical urban stormwater runoff pollutants (i.e.
sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, diesel range organics, and oil range organics). The location of the
study area is shown in Figure 1.
Storm water is conveyed overland via roadway to the storm garden, where samples are collected of the
influent prior to infiltrating the storm garden, and of the effluent after it has percolated through the
engineered soil. Laboratory analysis of the influent and effluent samples are used to determine the
treatment efficiency for each pollutant, as well as to monitor trends of the pollutants over time. Figure
2 displays the location of the storm garden and sampler locations.
Figure 1. Location map of Garland Avenue Storm
Figure 2. Storm garden and sampler location map.
Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm Garden Effectiveness Study
page 3 of 6
The Garland Avenue storm garden was designed utilizing LID principles and constructed with the
inclusion of a wood-based biochar as a component of the engineered bioretention soil mix. The
amended engineered soil mix was emplaced over a drain rock underdrain. The underdrain consists of a
perforated collection pipe installed the drain rock overlying an impermeable geosynthetic liner. Drought
tolerant plant species were planted in the storm garden soils, and bark mulch was used to dress the
surface.
Two Vortox liquid samplers were installed at the ground surface in upstream flow path of the storm
garden, and in the subsurface downstream of bioretention soil mix layer. Stormwater influent is
collected in the shallow sampler prior to interacting with the amended engineered soil, and stormwater
effluent that has percolated through the storm garden collects on the lined underdrain, where it is
conveyed to a effluent sampler. Figures 3 and 4 provide cross sectional views of the storm garden and
sampler installations.
Additional details and discussion on the of the storm garden construction and stormwater sampling
equipment are provided in the Garland Avenue effectiveness study QAPP.
Sample Events
Weather forecasts are monitored daily to identify when a qualifying storm event is likely to occur. The
Garland Avenue effectiveness study QAPP defines the qualifying storm event as consisting of a minimum
of 0.02 inches of precipitation, with less than 0.05 or 0.025 inches occurring during the preceding
antecedent dry period in the wet or dry seasons, respectively. Upon prediction of a qualifying storm
event, clean influent and effluent liquid samplers set to collect the first flush runoff are deployed at their
respective site locations. Following the storm event, the samplers are retrieved and transported to the
Riverside Park Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RPWRF), where the collected influent and effluent are
transferred to appropriate sample containers and shipped to an Ecology approved contract laboratory
under chain of custody. Analysis is performed to determine the influent and effluent concentrations of
total suspended solids, nutrients (NO2, NO3, PO4), total and dissolved heavy metals (As, Ca, Cd, Cu, Mg,
Pb, and Zn), diesel range organics, and oil range organics. Additional details and discussion on the
Figure 3. Storm garden cross section.
Figure 4. Storm garden effluent cross section.
Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm Garden Effectiveness Study
page 4 of 6
sample criteria and process are provided in the Garland Avenue effectiveness study QAPP. Table 1
provides the dates that samples were collected for analysis during qualifying storm events.
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
May 15
January 22
January 11
March 14
May 4
August 9
May 30
June 15
April 25
June 8
September 27
June 12
August 21
August 29
October 19
October 10
September 18
December 7
November 5
September 27
December 19
October 22
Table 1. Date of qualifying storm events when samples were collected for analysis.
Data Analysis
The influent and effluent pollutant concentrations are used to calculate the pollutant removal efficiency
of the bioretention soil amended with biochar for the monitored pollutants. Table 2 contains the list of
typical urban stormwater pollutants monitored for this study. Table A-1 and Table A-2 in Appendix A
contain the analytical data for the influent and effluent pollutants monitored during the qualifying storm
events that were sampled.
Pollutant
Pollutant Form
Sediment
Total suspended solids
Nutrients
Phosphorus as P
Inorganic Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3)
Hydrocarbons
Diesel range organics
Oil range organics
Total & Dissolved
Metals
Arsenic
Calcium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Magnesium
Lead
Zinc
Hardness as CaCO3
Table 2. Typical urban stormwater pollutants monitored in this study.
Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm Garden Effectiveness Study
page 5 of 6
The pollutant removal efficiency for each pollutant (the percent of pollutant retained by the soi) is
calculated as percent removal from the in flowing stormwater using the following equation:
Pollutant Removal Efficiency (%) = [Pollutant]nf – [Pollutant]Eff
[Pollutant]Inf
× 100
Where,
[Pollutant]Inf = Influent pollutant concentration, and
[Pollutant]Eff = Effluent pollutant concentration.
Percent removals are calculated from the pollutant influent and effluent concentrations for the
pollutants listed in Table 2 in order to obtain pollutant specific treatment efficacies for the biochar
amended soil. Table A-3 in Appendix A contains the percent removal efficiencies for the pollutants
monitored during the qualifying storm events that were sampled. Pollutant removal trend analyses for
each monitored pollutant are provided in Appendix B. Percent removals per each qualifying storm event
sampled for the monitored pollutants are provided in Appendix C.
Results
Review of the analyses show mixed pollutant retention results that appear to depend on the pollutant
and perhaps season. The results seem to vary significantly per event. Between 54 and 73 percent of the
events for the concentrations of total metals showed a net decrease (removal), with the exception of
total calcium. Of the array of dissolved metals, only zinc had a value that was more than half of the
events sampled showing a net decrease in concentration. Dissolved zinc, total suspended solids, and oil
range organics demonstrated that greater than 75% of the sample events had a net decrease in pollutant
concentrations.
Garland Avenue Biochar Amended Storm Garden Effectiveness Study
page 6 of 6
Figure 5. Percent of Events with Net Removal of Pollutant
Path Forward
This study will continue until the spring of 2025, and final determinations will be made on the
performance of the Garland Avenue Storm Gardens with biochar amended soil.
Percent (%)
Total
Dissolved
Appendix A
A-7
Appendix A – Influent and Effluent Data Tables
Appendix A
A-1
Table A-1. Table of 2019 – 2023 Influent Pollutant Concentrations
(std)
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
TSS
(mg/L)
DRO
(mg/L)
(std)
(mg/L)
Hardness
(mg/L CaCO3)
(mg/L)
Hardness
(mg/L…