Search.

Stormwater E&O programs strive to increase public awareness and encourage behavior change that will lead to improved water quality. However, achieving these goals and producing measurable results that demonstrate the effectiveness of E&O programs is challenging. This workshop will focus on providing attendees with information and examples that will assist them in developing and implementing targeted E&O programs as well as methods for measuring the impact of the program.

The training is presented from the point of view of a typical engineer who is developing the Stormwater Site Plan and looking at the decisions that he/she must make (from site assessment, through to final design and plan submission) with regards to New/Redevelopment.

Determining representative infiltration rates for a project site is critical to BMP design, particularly when meeting Ecology requirements related to low impact development and onsite management of stormwater runoff. This workshop will provide attendees with a broad understanding of the requirements for determining infiltration rates; as well as approaches, emerging methods, and current research.

King County’s Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit is going to be reissued in 2018. Ecology is responsible for writing the permit and has a regulatory process they must follow for reissuance. During this process, public input on permit requirements has been done through a formal comment period after the draft permit is issued. This process has not allowed for in-depth conversations on permit requirements which would incorporate lessons learned from implementers into permit language. Some of the comments provided by King County in the past through the public comment period have been incorporated. Some comments were not incorporated by Ecology and were important enough to litigate through the Pollution Control Hearing Board (PCHB). This process has missed out on opportunities to improve permit language and requirements and created dissonance among the stakeholders which included permit holders, Ecology, and environmental advocacy groups. This drove a self-selected group of permit holders to discuss more effective ways to improve stormwater management programs through the permit with a collaborative approach to reissuance. This group wanted to work with the stakeholders to address issues prior to Ecology starting the 2018 permit writing process.

2018 Ad-Hoc committee development: The 2018 Ad-Hoc Committee was started as an informal group of Western Washington municipal Phase I and Phase II stormwater permittees discussing how to achieve two goals:

1. Address problems prior to the drafting of permits: where changes, clarifications, and information sharing might lead to meaningful improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of stormwater management (reduce the appeal issues).
2. Build Relationships: Develop an open and transparent process to discuss issues thereby improving communications and seeking common ground and collaboration among stakeholders (environmental advocacy groups, Permittees, and Ecology) who share an interest in protecting receiving waters from the impacts of polluted stormwater runoff.

Through this process, suggestions to make the permit language more clear and effective were provided to Ecology prior to drafting permit language. Furthermore, stakeholders worked together in topic groups to address particularly complex and challenging elements of the NPDES Municipal Stormwater permit. For example:

• For the watershed scale planning requirements, this topic group was able to distill a number of lessons learned and agree on the fact that the intent of the watershed planning requirement should be to end up with a tool to guide capital and programmatic stormwater actions. This group was also able to provide Ecology with useful feedback on prioritized actions that would provide discrete outcomes to work towards the suggested intent of watershed scale planning.
• For the Structural Stormwater Controls topic group, there was an innovative idea put forward for addressing impacts from existing development. This topic group looked to develop standard methodologies for calculating tons of sediment removed by stormwater BMPs.

As a result of the 2018 Ad-Hoc committee process, Ecology has adapted their process to have additional focus group discussions (reconstituting the Ad-Hoc Committee topic groups) in addition to the required general public permit listening sessions.

For the past several years, the Washington State Department of Ecology has funded grants to further collaboration between local jurisdictions in Eastern Washington (EWA) on determining the effectiveness of various stormwater best management practices (BMPs). This paper presents a case study that describes the considerations, approaches, and progresses the joint effort has made to date as well as future work the various partners plan to complete. Another key aspect of the paper is a discussion regarding the Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) templates which were developed specifically for Stormwater Effectiveness Studies.

Eighteen cities and six counties in EWA currently have municipal stormwater permits allowing discharges of public storm drains to surface waters of the State. Pursuant to those permits, jurisdictions are required to “collaborate with other permittees to select, propose, develop, and conduct Ecology-approved studies to assess, on a regional or sub-regional basis, the effectiveness of permit-required stormwater management program activities and best management practices (BMPs)”. In response to these requirements, a collaborative effort of staff from the EWA jurisdictions identified 24 study ideas (Phase 1) and then developed a ranked list of the top 14 studies (Phase 2). Phase 3 will focus on developing the experimental design for the 14 “EWA Effectiveness Studies”, and occurs in two parts with the aim of delivering the following documents for each study: 3a) the Detailed Study Design Proposal (Proposal) and 3b) the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The final Phase 4 of the process will carry out the individual studies for 8 to 12 projects and report findings.

The proposed 14 EWA effectiveness studies include three classifications of BMPs classifications (i.e. structural, operational, and education & outreach). A distinction in the BMP classifications is made because, the variables that directly affect a BMPs effectiveness, differ between these classifications (i.e. structural, operational, and education & outreach). Subsequently the types and quality of data needed to evaluate effectiveness are also different along with the potential sources of error that may occur during the creation of the data. In an effort to meet permit goals for evaluating the effectiveness of these BMPs in an efficient manner, the Effectiveness Study QAPP Templates were developed for each of the three BMP classifications: Structural BMPs, Operational BMPs, and Education and Outreach BMPs.

The City of Pasco presents the ideal location for eliminating stormwater outfalls by retrofitting existing development with infiltration facilities. This is because there are only 5 stormwater outfalls in the City and the land area associated with those outfalls is relatively small—only 16% of the City. Also, the low rainfall amounts and high infiltration rates make stormwater facility size small relative to the tributary drainage area. Another local advantage is the wide streets and rights-of-way that provide ample opportunity for retrofitting. It doesn’t get better than this!

Herrera evaluated the feasibility of eliminating Pasco’s outfalls by providing an order of magnitude cost estimate for retrofitting the 5 basins. After desktop and field investigation of the project area, retrofit design templates were developed for residential and commercial/industrial land use types at sites in the two basins that discharge directly to the Columbia River. Hydrologic modeling was used to size the stormwater facilities in each template to infiltrate the 100-year storm. GIS analysis was used to apply these block-scale templates basin-wide and define costs for outfall elimination.

The concept of eliminating outfalls and decreasing the risk of potential impacts to surface water from stormwater (while also eliminating potential long term stormwater monitoring needs) is probably limited to climates and characteristics of locales like Pasco, with low rainfall and good infiltration. Although the total cost for retrofitting was prohibitively high at the basin scale, there can still be value in taking this approach for select areas where downstream resources are vulnerable, where contamination risks are high, and where site conditions are particularly favorable. The cost of large-scale retrofits like this may also be more reasonable to consider where aging conveyance infrastructure needs replacement or rehabilitation.

As is always the case in a modeling effort of this scale, numerous assumptions were applied at each step of the analysis. By intent, these assumptions were designed to conservatively represent a broad range of site complexity for retrofits. In the next steps, the City plans to construct pilot projects that can be used to refine underlying assumptions of the model and resulting in retrofit cost estimates.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plans apply to many waters of the state, and specific TMDL compliance requirements are attached to dozens of municipal NPDES permits. TMDL compliance requirements have increased with each NPDES permit update, and are likely to increase in future updates as long as receiving waters continue to not meet water quality standards. The City of Poulsbo Liberty Bay TMDL Implementation Plan project describes one community’s successful approach to proactively addressing and attaining TMDL requirements.

The City of Poulsbo is the primary municipality affected by the Liberty Bay TMDL Plan, which is designed to restore beneficial uses that include commercial shellfish harvesting. Stormwater from the City was identified in the TMDL Plan as a primary loading source, requiring significant reductions at multiple locations. In response, the City prepared the Poulsbo TMDL Implementation Plan to describe the historical water quality context, storm system analysis, technical prioritization criteria, CIP, and funding plan for attaining TMDL goals.

The City used a watershed assessment approach that included an evaluation of 7 sub-watersheds, over 40 sub-basins, and 10 years of water quality monitoring data to assess progress toward water quality goals, as well as identify and prioritize corrective action needs. Assessment results showed significant progress has been achieved in attaining water quality standards, with specific improvements associated with over $10M in stormwater quality retrofit projects that have been implemented by the City over the last 10 years.

Specific project challenges included securing funding for the project, coordination with other jurisdictions within the watershed, and obtaining elected official support for implementation. These challenges were addressed through creative funding approaches, an interagency technical review team, and multiple meetings and presentations to public officials. The ability to demonstrate that past investment was producing measurable water quality improvement was a key component of meeting each of these challenges, as showing that implementation could be accomplished within the existing rate structure.

The City’s TMDL Plan provides a success story that shows how water quality goals and TMDL compliance can be funded, accomplished, documented, and sustained. It provides an effective tool to ensure utility funds are used in a cost-effective manner. The project also provides a potential model approach for other NPDES permittees that are interested in taking proactive steps to meet TMDL requirements, improving water quality, and demonstrating effective use of utility rates to their communities.

Puget Sound has a global reputation for blue skies, green forests, and the magnificence of the Puget Sound waters. Unfortunately, local water bodies and the Puget Sound are at risk due to impacts from unprecedented urban development and polluted stormwater runoff. Annually, millions are spent in the Puget Sound watershed to build stormwater controls when development occurs. By design of current regulations, it will take over 60 years to have enough stormwater controls in place to protect urban water bodies. In the meantime, salmon are in decline and some salmon species are listed as threatened and cannot wait 60 years for their habitat to be restored. At this pace, quality of life for all who live and work in the Puget Sound basin will also suffer.

The credit for the foundation of this presentation lies with a small and innovative group from state agencies, cities, environmental organizations, and other interested professionals working over the past few years to produce new thinking and approaches for creating a new model for urban sustainability. Spearheaded by the Washington Department of Commerce and the South Central Local Integrating Organization, and working with Ecology and the City of Redmond, two guidance documents (Building Cities in the Rain; Stormwater Control Transfer Program) were created that show a pathway for creating resilient cities of the future.

This presentation will provide seminal information and tools on an innovative and foundational approach to solving urban problems by addressing three root causes: increases in toxic and eroding stormwater runoff, urban sprawl encroaching on healthy natural spaces, and the decline of healthy salmon populations. As local governments need to evaluate and manage the natural assets within their jurisdictions, working through the intersection of planning, stormwater management, and salmon recovery creates a place to start managing natural assets instead of stopping at mitigating further impacts. This presentation discusses platforms needed to begin the paradigm shift from meeting the letter of the law (stormwater regulations, CWA, ESA) to instead addressing the intent of the law. It provides the place, the information, and the discussion on how to begin this shift and will result in a more strategic approach to upcoming substantial investments so that results come sooner than 60 years from now.

Cleaner. Water. Faster. Bi-state Interpretive Clean Water Trail project is focused on protecting critical regional waterways through natural stormwater pollution treatment via native plant wetland and bioinfiltration swales and education. It is a catalyst for 24 partners along 60 miles of Lake Coeur d’Alene and the Spokane River in two states to provide coordinated, impactful clean water educational programming. This collaborative project is battling more than just stormwater pollution, but also widespread public perception of endless supplies of pristine water in the region.

The Lake Coeur d’Alene-Spokane River corridor is the physical thread connecting this geographically unique project. Science-based, well-engineered bio-swales and research-based impactful environmental education is the common intellectual thread. Stormwater treatment wetland/bioinfiltration swales, raingardens, and riparian buffers will be constructed with 1,000 locally-sourced new woody native shrubs as demonstration projects in highly visible areas along the corridor. The goal is to demonstrate the beauty, usefulness, and ecosystem services they provide!

Implementing the new on-site stormwater management requirements in the state of Washington can be a challenging and often daunting task. The Phase I permittees (including Seattle, Tacoma, Pierce County, and King County) have started the implementation of the new Minimum Requirement #5 in the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington by developing and adapting their own stormwater manuals, which went into effect in 2016. Starting in January 2017, a majority of the 88 Phase II jurisdictions in Western Washington were required to implement either the on-site stormwater management requirements developed by Ecology or one of the Phase I jurisdictions. There is a huge learning curve for developers, designers, engineers, and plan reviewers for implementing this new approach to low impact development (LID). Applicants will be required to document the technical infeasibility of a specific LID best management practice (BMP) before moving on to the next potential BMP on the list. Proof of technical infeasibility may require on-site infiltration testing.

Several Phase I and Phase II jurisdictions have been developing implementation tools to help ease this transition for municipal staff and the development community. Examples of these implementation tools will be provided during this presentation including an infeasibility map that depicts spatial data including steep slopes, landslide and erosion hazard areas, and contaminated soils to show where infiltration is infeasible. Other examples include handouts summarizing the requirements for small projects, case studies documenting infeasibility criteria for example scenarios, factsheets outlining the post-construction soil quality and depth requirement, templates for simplified stormwater site plans and Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), and calculators for selecting and sizing BMPs.

Through a variety of examples, attendees will discover ideas for streamlining and improving the implementation of LID BMPs in their jurisdictions, whether they are faced with similar regulatory requirements or simply have an interest in easing the application of LID in their own community.

Many Permittees are now responsible for the long term success of permeable pavement. As with any other roadway assets, this success is based on appropriate design, installation, and maintenance. While guidelines and regulations have been established for stormwater facilities and for paved surfaces individually there are many unknowns when these facilities are combined. With the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington requiring permeable pavement if feasible and the 2004 Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington allowing porous pavement, it seems prudent to prepare for a potential future where permeable pavement is commonplace.

While infiltration rates of freshly installed permeable pavement were readily available, Pierce County staff found very little published information on infiltration rates over time or durability of pavement outside of laboratory conditions. Pierce County designed, installed, and continues to maintain several permeable pavement facilities with the intention of estimating and reducing life cycle costs. The facilities constructed include a cul-de-sac with a history of flooding, arterial roadway, road shoulder, sidewalk, and parking lot. The county tested infiltration rates and performance of various cleaning methods to support the development of a successful maintenance program.

This presentation will address the objectives of pervious pavement and performance over time. Design and installation will be briefly discussed to share known parameters and unexpected observations in the establishment of the test sites. The results of field testing with various types of equipment to clear particulate embedded in the pavement will be presented. The county will share the lessons learned and suggestions on how to reduce life cycle costs.

Pierce County has more to learn on how to maintain pervious pavement. We are in the process of establishing a partnership with Washington State University Extension to publish maintenance guidelines.

The West Central Neighborhood is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Washington State. Two combined sewer basins within this neighborhood were identified for stormwater treatment and infiltration. Several alternatives were evaluated for constructability, impact to neighbors, and cost. The selected alternative will be presented with the reasons why it was the best choice.

Washington State Department of Ecology’s Technology Assessment Protocol-Ecology (TAPE) is a peer-reviewed certification process for stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs). Certified BMPs are then included as an “Emerging Technology” in the stormwater management manuals for Western and Eastern Washington and can be employed to meet Phase I and Phase II permit requirements for new and redevelopment projects. The protocol is robust and rigorous, providing a standardized method for evaluating treatment BMPs, assurance in the quality and representativeness of the data, and confidence in any resulting certification. However, navigating the protocol can also be costly, prolonged, and confusing. The TAPE 101 presentation will detail the requirements of the TAPE program, provide estimates of costs and time involved in obtaining certification in Washington State, and highlight the suitability of the certification for BMP use in both Western and Eastern Washington.

This presentation will cover the findings from the Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSMP) Effectiveness Study: Effectiveness of Stormwater Retrofits for Treating Highway Runoff to Echo Lake. This study evaluated the treatment effectiveness of bioretention planter boxes and Filterra (for phosphorus treatment) installed as part of a stormwater retrofit along Highway 99 in Shoreline, Washington. These treatment installations receive runoff from a mix of highway, commercial, and residential areas. Composite grab samples were collected over two storm seasons (2015-2017) from the inlet and outlet of the treatment installations. Parameters included total suspended solids, nutrients, bacteria, total and dissolved metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

This study is relevant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees because it was designed to address data gaps identified by the Washington Stormwater Work Group (SWG) on the effectiveness of stormwater treatment technologies being installed in the Puget Sound Region. NPDES permittees selected this project as one of the first-round RSMP Effectiveness Studies for funding.

Municipal NPDES stormwater permits require the implementation of procedures designed to characterize, trace, and eliminate environmental threats posed by illicit discharges. However, merely documenting and recording individual Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) actions and activities alone do not make the bigger picture of stormwater management more clear. Consequently, in order to achieve a greater level of understanding, permittees should begin to seek answers to the following questions: What are the IDDE pollutants of concern within their jurisdictions? Where across the landscape are these incidents occurring and to what frequency? Are there identifiable trends? Can more detailed IDDE information be generated to improve the practicality, efficiency, and/or effectiveness of IDDE efforts or other stormwater management programs?

Unincorporated Pierce County (population 380,000), is the second-largest Phase I NPDES Municipal Stormwater permittee within the state of Washington; the County’s Surface Water Management (SWM) division is charged with managing both the natural surface water systems and the stormwater collection and conveyance infrastructure situated within its 1,800 square mile service area. In an attempt to answer the questions posed above, Pierce County SWM has completed a study (independent of permit requirements) involving the analysis of IDDE records spanning a duration of five years (2012-2016).

The five-year analysis summarizes, quantifies, and further examines in detail, the County’s Municipal Stormwater Permit IDDE Program. After organizing and classifying more than 1,000 separate IDDE incidents that occurred across both urban and rural County settings during the study period, a subsequent assessment and evaluation of these data yielded a number of key findings, including: (1) an identification of stormwater IDDE pollutants of concern, (2) a demonstration of IDDE incident frequency within drainage basins, (3) the establishment of temporal trends, (4) a correlation between IDDE incidents, percent impervious coverage, and land use categories, and (5) measurable characteristics of IDDE operations and functions.

As a complement to the broader Source Identification Information Repository (SIDIR) monitoring component required under each of the state of Washington Department of Ecology Phase I and Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit programs, the voluntary Pierce County IDDE Analysis clearly validates the critical importance of locally-produced IDDE information and demonstrates how local and smaller geographic data sets are better suited in isolating and solving problems at the jurisdictional level. The County’s study adds to the growing body of knowledge related to stormwater management, and it helps direct priorities and resources for adaptive management of these programs. Additionally, it fills a gap; the study sets a standard by establishing a framework for other municipalities to use in building their own IDDE analyses to measure performance.

The NPDES municipal stormwater permits for both western and eastern Washington include requirements to have a program to “prevent, detect, characterize, trace, and eliminate illicit connections and illicit discharges into the MS4.” As part of the Stormwater Action Monitoring program for western Washington (SAM, formerly known as the RSMP or Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program), a source control effectiveness study was developed to evaluate municipal efforts for controlling sources of stormwater pollution. One task of the study was to compile and evaluate illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) data as reported by permittees in 2014. As an adaptive management effort, the SAM program and the IDDE data evaluation are important for informing permittees and the Department of Ecology (Ecology) how the IDDE permit requirements are being implemented. With direction and guidance from the Source Identification (Source ID) subgroup of the SAM program, three objectives for the IDDE data evaluation were identified:

1. Set priorities for municipal IDDE efforts to reduce sources of stormwater pollution and ensure consistent reporting of data.
2. Identify the most commonly used and best methods to reduce or eliminate illicit discharges and connections.
3. Inform regional funding decisions to address common source control issues.

The data evaluation objectives were addressed by collating and analyzing IDDE data, including identifying what data are being collected by permittees, how those data are reported, and reviewing the breadth and range of the types of IDDE-related stormwater pollution. In addition, the observed distributions of pairs of data fields were compared to random distributions using contingency tables and tested for significant differences with the maximum likelihood chi-squared statistic.

A total of 2913 records were reviewed and included 1269 records from six Phase I permittees and 1644 records from 71 Phase II permittees. One challenge was parsing the data from disparate sources into a common database. This required reviewing the notes from each record and developing methods for a consistent coding of data. Another challenge was the high variability in the number of IDDE incidents reported by each jurisdiction, which ranged from one to over 700. This variability biased the evaluation toward the jurisdictions who reported the most incidents.

The results indicate that efforts to reduce or eliminate IDDE-related stormwater pollution should focus on the largest quantities of discharge, the most frequent occurrences, and the relative hazard the pollutants pose for water quality. Results also highlight the need to streamline IDDE reporting, and Ecology has already begun to investigate ways to reduce redundancy in permittees’ pollution reporting. With the commonality of IDDE permit requirements in western and eastern Washington along with common land uses and potential pollution generating activities, the results from this evaluation help inform Ecology and permittees throughout the state what is the most useful, consistent, and efficient information to report for IDDE incidents.

Kitsap County’s Watershed Health Monitoring program has collected streamflow, water quality, habitat, and macroinvertebrate data for over two decades. Since there is now a fairly robust dataset available, the County decided to capitalize on the years of effort and conduct a rigorous analysis of the data and the evaluation metrics. The overarching goal of the monitoring program is to be able to relate specific actions within a watershed (e.g. restoration, development, and adoption of new technologies) to biological outcomes for the purpose of informing adaptive management of the watershed. To achieve this goal, a rigorous, multifaceted statistical evaluation is being done for both macroinvertebrate and streamflow data. This evaluation is being done in two phases; the first phase of which has been completed and is the focus of this presentation.

The objectives of this first phase included:

• Evaluate whether there are individual macroinvertebrate metrics that may perform better as early indicators for trend detection.
• Assess whether there is evidence of long-term or short-term trends in the macroinvertebrate data.
• Analyze continuous streamflow data to determine how much of the observed variation can be explained by precipitation, and how much might be the result of other factors such as watershed processes, land-use changes, and restoration activities.

The City of Vancouver recently initiated a private stormwater facility inspection and maintenance project with grant funding from the Dept. of Ecology’s Stormwater Financial Assistance Program (SFAP). For municipal agencies, an inspection program can elevate baseline maintenance on private sites and encourage the implementation of a more consistent standard to provide better water quality outcomes.

Private stormwater facilities designed to help remove oil, chemicals, metals, and sediment from runoff before it is discharged must be maintained to achieve that function. Even simple mowed grass swales accumulate debris and pollutants from paved surfaces and must be periodically cleaned up to distribute flow and maximize pollutant removal. Accumulation of sediment over time blocks inlets, buries flow controls, and reduces swale storage capacity. Of the initial 300 facilities inspected, Vancouver found that nearly 60% of common turf swales have deficiencies severe enough to inhibit function, twice our original estimate, and a considerable loss of water quality treatment.

A few challenges encountered in this project were a large number of previously undocumented private stormwater facilities discovered in the field, confusion from owners and property managers about jurisdiction and maintenance responsibilities, the absence of coordinated maintenance from homeowners’ associations, and undetermined private conveyances. Future work includes subsequent grant applications to address these time-consuming and more detailed activities with the goal of creating a comprehensive private facility inventory and improved treatment value from existing private facilities.

Lake Whatcom, the drinking water source for more than 100,000 Whatcom County residents, has seen a marked decline in water quality over the past 50 years. Excess nutrients generated by residential properties have caused a significant decrease in dissolved oxygen levels as well as seasonal algal blooms. In April 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the Lake Whatcom Total Maximum Daily Load study, which has set in motion a 50-year cleanup effort focused on reducing phosphorus inputs by nearly 87%. While local jurisdictions are implementing a capital retrofit program, much of the developed land lies outside of the reach of infrastructure projects, especially along the lakeshore. Additionally, end-of-pipe treatment systems are both inefficient at phosphorus removal and prohibitively expensive, considering the price of acquiring land around Lake Whatcom.

The Homeowner Incentive Program (HIP) approaches the problem from a complementary angle, providing technical and financial assistance to property owners to reduce phosphorus entering public infrastructure or the lake. Since its launch in 2011, the HIP has facilitated the completion of more than 180 private site retrofits, installing more than 420 P-reducing Best Management Practices. These BMPs include native landscaping, infiltration trenches, specially-designed rain gardens, permeable pavements, specialty filters, and accessory BMPs that reduce the impact of residential properties on the lake. The HIP has invested more than $1,000,000 into reimbursements to participating property owners, for expenses paid to more than 150 local businesses and contractors. Perpetual phosphorus reduction resulting from HIP projects is estimated at 25lbsP per year, an amount which would cost an estimated $3,500,000 to remove via capital projects designed, built, and maintained by the jurisdictions.

After a five-year pilot period, the HIP is re-launching as a permanent program funded through municipal budgets for the 50-year TMDL response. Extensive audience research and program redesign, including surveys, focus groups, stakeholder panels, and the creation of specialized technical and outreach materials, was completed in 2016. The improved HIP will roll out in early 2017, expanding to new areas, offering a more robust technical and financial support package, and engaging a larger portion of the private sector. HIP-specific improvements for 2017 include a re-branding effort, new design details, and material specifications, design templates for each BMP, example landscape plans, a professional certification program, training, and marketing support for material suppliers, and DIY workshops for homeowners.

With more than six years of experience operating, managing, and troubleshooting an incentive-based residential retrofit program that promotes specific LID BMPs on private properties for the benefit of the public at large, HIP staff would be honored to share our insights, lessons learned success stories, and knowledge with and amongst others who are thinking about, developing, or implementing similar programs in their jurisdictions.

This presentation will discuss the Kendall Yards project and provide an overview of the stormwater issues in Eastern Washington.

The Kendall Yards project is located in Spokane and is a former railroad site that has been turned into an urban neighborhood. The Kendall Yards Stormwater Project is an innovative and collaborative approach to stormwater pollution reduction. The project is helping the City of Spokane achieve compliance with their Phase II stormwater permit by removing PCBs, heavy metals, and other pollutants from stormwater. The project utilizes an infiltration facility that showcases public/private partnerships, low impact development, and education and outreach.

Spokane is also working on the redevelopment of Riverfront Park, the former site of the Expo ’74 World’s Fair. The project is east of the Kendall Yards project and is also part of the former railyard system. The site has contaminated soils, which present challenges to Construction Stormwater Management.

Stormwater Action Monitoring (SAM) is a collaborative, regional stormwater monitoring effort program that is funded by more than 90 cities and counties, the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. SAM’s goal is to improve stormwater management to reduce pollution, improve water quality, and reduce flooding. We do this by measuring stormwater impacts on the environment and evaluating the effectiveness of stormwater management actions.

SAM creates a feedback loop to identify effective actions to reduce pollution and flooding associated with stormwater. SAM’s projects are developed in an open, coordinated, and shared manner that captures a regional understanding of how management actions can lead to results. The pooling of funds allows jurisdictions throughout the region – large and small – to benefit from projects designed to produce transferable findings. Any jurisdiction with science staff, expertise, and interest can participate in SAM projects. This presentation will broadly discuss the structure of SAM, transparent administration, active participation from stakeholders, and the active SAM projects.

Stormwater runoff affects water quality, human health, slope stability, and freshwater and marine habitat quality. Climate change is expected to exacerbate stormwater issues, in particular, due to the dual impacts of sea-level rise and more intense heavy rain events. This talk will review the state of the science on stormwater and climate change, providing information about ongoing research that may be of interest to attendees. Although the presentation will focus on these two principal drivers of stormwater impacts, the presentation will review other climate change impacts that may be of relevance to stormwater, and possible directions for future work.

Development in Tacoma can be complex due to the highly urbanized area. The complexities are driven by limited space, aging infrastructure, and demolition costs. The City of Tacoma has developed a Regional Stormwater Facility Plan for new development and redevelopment projects by constructing regional facilities in-lieu-of constructing individual site-specific facilities.

The primary goal of this Regional Stormwater Facility Plan is to establish, use, and manage the City’s Payment In-Lieu-of Construction Program for new development and redevelopment projects where stormwater flow control/water quality treatment is required. Goals of the program include:

• Providing viable and sustainable options for stormwater treatment for new and redevelopment projects.
• Utilizing scale efficiencies by combining the stormwater mitigation needs of individual projects into a larger regional project (e.g., effectively reduce maintenance costs).
• Reducing the cost and land impacts imposed on the development community.
• Promoting redevelopment and jobs in Tacoma.
• Efficiently meeting NPDES Permit requirements.
• Developing a process to identify feasible locations and to prioritize and construct stormwater mitigation projects on a regional scale.
• Providing an effective and transparent accounting structure for tracking stormwater mitigation needs and capacity.

With this voluntary program, participants will be allowed to pay a system development charge and maintenance surcharge in-lieu-of constructing individual site-specific stormwater facilities. This program incorporates:

• Individual watershed plans which specify the types and locations of facilities in the program.
• Flow control and/or water quality capacity credit for each regional stormwater facility will be calculated.
• A distinct system development charge and maintenance surcharge for each watershed (a normalized unit cost based on the aggregate square footage of capacity credit for the regional facilities). The one-time system development charge will be used for capital costs and property acquisition and a monthly maintenance surcharge will be used for long-term operation and maintenance of regional facilities.
• Maintain and track the balance of capacity used and available for each watershed.

When the amount of capacity used for any regional facility reaches 85%, Tacoma will seek to provide additional regional facility capacity through the construction of new or retrofit of existing facilities.

The financial impact of this program on participants was evaluated by comparing the cost of “example” development charges developed from existing large scale regional Tacoma facilities to life cycle costs for on-site facilities at representative development sites. The analysis shows that the Program is a viable option in the Tacoma and the average projected development charge and maintenance surcharge range from:

• Capital Costs of $0.35/sf to $1.02/sf for stormwater treatment only facilities with average Annualized 20 year O&M Costs of $0.01/sf.
• Capital Costs of newly constructed larger facilities are $1.08/sf to $1.47/sf for flow control only facilities with Annualized 20 year O&M Costs of $0.01/sf or less.

As development increases, there has been an adverse effect on shellfish growing areas throughout the Puget Sound region due to increased stormwater entering our streams. Management of stormwater through control of impervious surfaces becomes critical. Kitsap County has code requiring any development or redevelopment to meet Kitsap County Storm Water Drainage requirements, but what can be done to reduce runoff from existing developments or properties? Kitsap Conservation District (KCD), along with Kitsap County Public Works, Kitsap Public Health District, and Washington State University Extension formed a unique, nationally recognized program called Clean Water Kitsap. The Rain Garden element of this productive program, administered by the Kitsap Conservation District, has been successful because it offers cost-share to help homeowners solve stormwater runoff issues using low impact development approaches (LID) such as rain gardens, pervious parking, and cisterns. The Kitsap Conservation District’s Rain Gardens & More Program provides solutions to stormwater management. The program is reaching the existing homeowners and providing technical assistance and incentive funds to make it possible for them to successfully retrofit their systems used to collect and transfer the runoff from their parcel.

In 2010, the first year of the program’s outreach, 100 rain garden cost-share applications were received from Kitsap County citizens. With this large influx of applicants in the beginning phase of the program, it became clear there would be a high interest in rain gardens, but only 13 projects were installed. We discovered barriers to installation when applicants either did not know who to contact to install their garden, did not know where to purchase the materials, or did not have enough experience in construction to get started. Due to those factors, Kitsap Conservation District launched “Dig Days” in 2012. “Dig Days” is a program where, once a cost-share application is approved, KCD arranges for excavation of the rain garden site, delivers the rain garden soil mix, pipe, fittings, and Zone 1 plants. These gardens are typically completed in just one day. Since the inception of “Dig Days”, KCD has installed over 220 LID practices and have a waiting list that exceeds next year’s cost-share budget. Kitsap Conservation District believes that sharing our experience with other agencies or groups will make a difference in our natural resource environment and stormwater management.

This presentation illustrates some of the key considerations when designing and constructing LID retrofits in the City of Pullman which has low permeability soils, significant cold and snow prone conditions, and moderate precipitation levels. Topics will include cold and snow prone considerations, modified subgrade preparations, when and how to use liners and under-drains, how the feasibility of retaining and infiltrating the water quality storm into low permeability soil varies by the type of LID BMP, and the benefit of using LID even when under-drains are necessary. Lessons learned from the bidding and construction process will also be discussed. A couple of important things came out of the Pullman LID retrofit project that is of interest to designers and permit compliance managers:

1. It is sometimes feasible to effectively apply LID even in lower permeability soils, but the effectiveness of LID at treating and infiltrating the water quality storm varies by type of BMP. Permeable pavements (which do not concentrate runoff), may be able to infiltrate the entire water quality storm into lower permeability soils, while a bio-retention BMP (which handles concentrated runoff) may not. This has implications not just for selecting the preferred LID BMP based on soils, but also for assessing the overall feasibility of various BMPs to meet NPDES on-site retention requirements for larger events. Generally, BMPs that promote dispersed infiltration, rather than concentration of runoff will be able to infiltrate larger storm events into marginal soils.
2. Credit for water quality and flow control benefits are still warranted even when under-drains are used with LID. However, the reason for the credit and level of flow control benefit varies by BMP. For example, permeable pavements which infiltrate at least the entire water quality storm event should get full water quality credit and significant flow control credit, even if they cannot infiltrate the entire 10-year storm; while Bioretention facilities which filter the water quality storm through porous media, but cannot infiltrate the entire water quality volume, should get full water quality credit, plus partial flow control credit due to impoundment of runoff in the facility and retention through soil moisture, both of which reduce the peak discharge to receiving waters.

The City of Seattle is blessed by an abundance of water bodies around the City. Unfortunately, many of these water bodies have become impaired over time due to stormwater pollution and some water bodies, such as the Lower Duwamish Waterway, are listed as Superfund Cleanup sites. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) and other City of Seattle departments have been successfully identifying and controlling sources of stormwater pollution to the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) in coordination with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and other agencies for over ten years. However, with the issuance of the Record of Decision for the Lower Duwamish Superfund Cleanup, Ecology and EPA have required SPU to develop and implement an adaptive management program for source control. The focus of the adaptive management program is to reduce sources of stormwater pollution, including PCBs, discharging from the City’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) so that the Superfund cleanup can proceed and recontamination of the cleanup site is minimized.

SPUs MS4 discharges to the Lower Duwamish out of 30 outfalls from an area that covers approximately 20,000 acres. To manage such a large area, SPU uses MS4 solids data to implement a data-driven approach for source control adaptive management. MS4 solids are compared to applicable standards to prioritize source control activities such as pollution source tracing, line cleaning, best management practice inspections, and siting of stormwater infrastructure projects. Innovated tools such as designing a sediment trap that fits in smaller pipes, using a detection dog to sniff out PCBs, and evaluating how to use the principals of Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance along with the MS4 solids data to develop defensible approaches for meeting operation and maintenance regulatory compliance requirements for the MS4 are included in the plan. The adaptive management program allows SPU to focus resources on sources of pollution, prioritize work, coordinate activities to control stormwater pollution, and support Ecology and EPA’s Lower Duwamish Superfund cleanup program.

The information that will be presented is of benefit to other municipalities engaged in stormwater management by describing the tools, processes, and methods that can be used to identify and control sources of pollution. Phase II communities can gain knowledge of how a mature source control program is designed and all who attend will enjoy and find interesting the many innovative techniques that SPU is exploring to identify sources of pollution to make Seattle the best place to live.

Snohomish County implements a source control program, performing an average of 600 site inspections annually, and over 6,000 total since the program began in 2007. The program focuses on working with commercial and industrial businesses and landowners to control pollution. County Pollution Prevention Specialists, inspect properties that perform activities that have the potential to pollute to surface waters. One of the goals during inspections is to prevent, detect, and eliminate illicit connections and discharges from commercial and industrial properties. Routine and detailed site evaluations are designed to prevent unfortunate situations for businesses, the environment, and the community. Using an education and outreach approach, the county successfully contributes to ensuring clean water while maintaining strong relationships with industry, agriculture, and the general business community. Although meeting federal and state mandates is costly, this program ranks well on its benefits to cost ratio.

Permittees will learn the basics of an effective source control program including assessment of properties to determine a potential to pollute, generating a business inventory, effective BMPS for varying activity types and business sectors, critical information to track, elements of a database structure, communication techniques and progressive code enforcement strategies. Snohomish County developed creative and practical solutions for source control implementation that meets permit requirements. Snohomish County navigated issues such as; accessing private property, establishing outside agency partnerships (e.g. Conservation Districts, Health Districts), working with agricultural and livestock operations, and producing reports that clearly demonstrate compliance. Tools that Permittees will take away are structure and elements of a source control program, communication techniques with businesses, and the necessary software to support a program (GIS to research and analyze data and a database to store inspection information).

This presentation is relevant to all permittees who desire to have a source control program that focuses on providing technical assistance to private businesses. Source Control is required for all Phase I permittees and is incorporated into both Eastern and Western Washington Phase II permits under the illicit discharge detection and elimination requirements. Many Phase II’s choose to implement a local source control program to assist in fulfilling IDDE objectives. Those Permittees would benefit from learning how a county, with thousands of properties that generate pollution, execute their program. In addition, Permittee’s that seek to create a new program but need assistance with program development would benefit greatly as well. The county plans to continue to implement a comprehensive source control program. Our future plans include facilitating more creative partnerships, promoting regional stormwater campaigns, fostering more collaboration with the Phase II permittees in Snohomish County, and developing a business recognition program.

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) is pursuing a bold new approach to municipal stormwater treatment; implementing an active mechanical stormwater treatment plant. Target pollutants include fecal coliform, PCBs, total phosphorus, total copper, total suspended solids, and total zinc. After an initial screening of available options, two technologies, chemically enhanced sand filtration, and ballasted sedimentation, were selected for further evaluation. Both technologies are commonly used in the drinking water and wastewater industry, although to our knowledge neither has been piloted with municipal stormwater.

The planning phase of this project built upon the piloting knowledge developed in the drinking water and wastewater industries. Pilot testing was designed to evaluate an array of coagulants, polymers, and operational scenarios. We acknowledged that both bench-scale testing and pilot testing of stormwater would be a challenge due to the intermittent nature of flows and the fluctuation of variable influent water quality (including tidal saltwater); more so than in the drinking water and wastewater industries.

Developing the approach to the bench-scale testing and pilot operations incorporated flexibility in the plans to allow adjustments to the changing conditions. Our belief that flexibility would be key to our success was confirmed during the pilot system operations. As anticipated, the weather surprised us, the equipment required mechanical skill, and the work plans required modification as we proceeded.

This paper describes the lessons learned during the bench-scale and piloting effort. It also presents the costs associated with the effort and suggests a contingency budget.

Thurston County, the City of Lacey, and the City of Olympia have been implementing programmatic and structural best management practices (BMPs) in the Henderson Inlet Watershed since the early 90s. In 2013-2014, a TMDL effectiveness monitoring study conducted by the Department of Ecology’s Environmental Assessment Program (EAP) in the Henderson Inlet watershed indicates that bacteria and nitrogen levels are declining throughout the watershed. These reductions occurred despite an increase in the human population in this Thurston County watershed and an increase in parcel density within the urban growth areas. A comparison of projects implemented in the watershed and water quality suggests that stormwater retrofits, septic-to-sewer projects, and land acquisition projects are likely responsible for the majority of the fecal coliform declines. The study found that: “Many of the water quality improvements outlined in this report are the result of coordination between Thurston County and the Cities of Lacey and Olympia, up-front investments made in planning, and Thurston County’s long-term monitoring program.”

The “Thurston County’s long-term monitoring program” mentioned in the report refers to a formal partnership between Thurston County and the cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater that has jointly develop and implement a coordinated monitoring program of water quality, stream flows, lake level, and precipitation to aid in the assessment of the health of regional water resources since 1991. The intended mission of this joint effort is to:

“Assess the health of regional water resources to inform the development of programs, policies and capital facility plans to protect those water resources for beneficial uses in perpetuity.”

With the reissuance of the Western Washington Stormwater Permit in 2012 (Permit), ironically resources for this joint partnership came under strain. Tough choices had to be made as the local partnership simply did not have sufficient resources to continue to fully fund local efforts and meet the Permit’s new monitoring obligations. As a result of needing to meet the new Permit obligation, funding for the local monitoring was slashed by over 40 percent. As a result, this partnership’s ability to assess the health of our regional water resources to inform the development of programs, policies, and capital facility plans to protect those water resources had been compromised. The same could be said for any of EAP’s future efforts in the region.

There is value in having and maintaining a large regional monitoring program to provide context for local efforts, yet it is still important to support and maintain local monitoring efforts in order to inform local adaptive management processes within a reasonable time frame. Can we do something to rectify these unintended consequences? The reissuance of the 2018 Permit certainly provides an opportunity to give it a try.