HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-06; BRESSI RANCH RESIDENTIAL TM; STORM WATER QUALITY BRESSI RANCH; 2002-09-01STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
BRESSI RANCH
RESIDENTIAL TM
City of Carlsbad, CA
September 2002
Prepared For:
LENNAR COMMUNITIES
c/o LENNAR BRESSI VENTURE, LLC
5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared By:
PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Document No. 2267.00
Adolph Lugo RCE 50998
Registration Expires 09/30/05
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Project Background 3
2.1 Hydrologic Unit 4
2.2 Beneficial Uses 4
2.3 Impaired Water Bodies 6
3.0 Existing and Developed Condition Pollutants 6
4.0 BMP Pollutant Removal Efficiency 9
5.0 Project BMP Design Criteria 10
6.0 Project BMP Plan Implementation 10
6.1 Constmction BMP 10
6.2 Municipal/Post-Constmction BMP Options 11
6.3 BMP Funding Source and Maintenance 14
7.0 Conclusion 14
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map 2
TABLES
1 Beneficial Uses for Inland Surface Waters and Coastal Waters 4
2 Beneficial Uses for Groundwater 4
3 Existing and Developed Condition Pollutants 7
4 BMP Treatment Controls 7
5 BMP Pollutant Removal Efficiency 9
6 BMP Design Criteria 10
7 Pollutant Load Estimates for the Residential Pas A-l
8 Pollutant Load Estimates for Existing Conditions A-l
9 Required Mitigation Flowrates and Volumes A-3
EXHIBITS
A Water Quality Exhibit Map
B CDS Unit Location Map
APPENDICES
1 Residential Planning Area Pollutant Loads and Support Documentation
2 Nationwide Treatment Control BMP Information
3 Table 9: Required Mitigation Howrates and Volumes
4 Post-Constmction BMPs
5 CDS Unit Information
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Califomia State Water Quality Control Board approved Order Number 2001-01 (Order) on
Febmary 21, 2001. The Order outlines the storm water discharge requirements for municipal
storm water systems, which drain "development" area from watersheds within 1) the County of
San Diego, 2) incorporated cities of San Diego County, and 3) San Diego Unified Port District.
The City of Carlsbad is identified as one of the municipal copermittees in the Order and,
therefore, subject to its requirements.
From a storm water quality perspective, the new Order requires the implementation of storm
water BMPs. The BMP design criteria, pursuant to the Order, are either volume- or flow-based.
Specifically, volume-based BMPs must be designed to treat the volume of mnoff produced from
a 24-hour 85* percentile storm event. In general, this is equal to 0.6 inches of runoff for San
Diego County.
Flow-based BMPs must be designed to treat a flow rate of 0.2 inches of rainfall per hour. In
general, regardless of the criteria used, storm flow must be removed and treated before re-
entering the storm drain system, or removed completely and allowed to percolate via a retention
pond.
This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) was prepared to define potential Project Best
Management Practice (BMP) options that satisfy the requirements identified in the following
documents: 1) Carlsbad Municipal Code Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance, 2) Standard Specifications for Public Works Constmction, 3) NPDES General Permit
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Constmction Activity, and 4) County of San Diego
Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit (Order Number 2001-01). Specifically, this report
includes the following: 1) preferred BMP options for the Project, and 2) BMP device information
for the Project options.
TAWaler Resoun:esM325-Bressi\Wattr Qualily\WQP_Plan-Checkni325WQ-city0902.doc j
UJ
O
O
G
a.
Project site.
•MELROSE
DRIVE
POINSETTIA
LANE
T:\Woter Resources\1325-Bressi\Waler Quality\WQP_Plaii-Checlcl\1325WQ-ciiy(»02.cioc 2
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
This SWMP provides a "concept" water quality plan for the residential land use component of
the Bressi Ranch development. The property, with a total acreage of approximately 585 acres, is
located southeast of the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road in the City of
Carlsbad, Califomia. The site consists of an irregular-shaped piece of property bordered on the
north by Palomar Airport Road, on the west by El Camino Real, on the southwest and south by
undeveloped property, and by the Rancho Carrillo development to the east (see Figure 1). The
approved Master Tentative Map (Master TM) proposes to develop 623 dwelling units and
2,160,000 square feet of industrial space.
From an existing condition drainage perspective, the majority of the site drains to an unnamed
creek that is tributary to San Marcos Creek. San Marcos Creek eventually drains to Batiquitos
Lagoon, located southwest of the project. The remaining 38 acres of the site, located in the
northwest comer, are part of the Encinas Creek watershed. This area drains into a concrete ditch
via a culvert beneath El Camino Real into Encinas Creek and terminates at the Pacific Ocean.
More specifically, the site generates an existing 1 OO-year storm mnoff of 705 cfs tributary to San
Marcos Creek, and 68 cfs from the 38 acres tributary to Encinas Creek. Under proposed
conditions detention basins will be provided along the southem boundary of the site to attenuate
storm mnoff back to the existing conditions peak discharges.
Also, the site will generate a total water quality treatment flow of approximately 54.9 cfs (28.2
cfs residential and 26.7 cfs industrial) and a water quality treatment volume of 855,512 cubic feet
(549,070 cu-ft residential and 306,442 cu-ft industrial).
Note that the BMP plans described herein focus on the residential and mixed-use portions of the
tentative map. Specific Industrial Site BMPs are addressed in a separate report.
T:\Water Resources\1325-Btessi\Water Qualily\WQP_Plan-Checkni325WQ-cily0902.doc ^
2.1 Hydrologic Unit
The Bressi Ranch project is located in the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. The majority of the project
site is located within the San Marcos Hydrologic Area (HA) and the Batiquitos Hydrologic Sub-
Area (HSA) 904.51. A relatively small portion of the site, 38 acres, located in the northwestem
portion of the project is part of the Encinas HA 904.40.
2.2 Beneficial Uses
The beneficial uses for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit are provided in Tables 1 and 2 below. The
tables were obtained from the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (WQCP).
Also included below are the defmitions of the various acronyms in the tables.
Table 1. Beneflcial Uses for Inland Surface Waters and Coastal Waters
Hydrologic
Unit Number
MUN AGR IND RECl REC2 WARM WILD
904.40
Encinas HA
-1-0 • • •
904.52
San Marcos
Creek HA
-1-• • • • •
904.53
Unnamed
Intermittent
Streams
-1-• • • • •
Source: Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, September 1994.
Table 2. Beneficial Uses for Groundwater
Hydrologic
Unit Number
MUN AGR IND
904.40
Encinas HA
+
Source: Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, September 1994.
T:\Water ResoiircesVI325-Bressi\WaIer Quality\WQP_Plan-Cliccl(l\1325WQ-city0902.do<: ^
Notes for Tables 1 and 2:
• = Existing Beneficial Use
0 = Potential Beneficial Use
-I- = Excepted from Municipal
MUN - Municipal and Domestic Supply: Includes use of water for community, military, or
individual water supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply.
AGR - Agricultural Supply: Includes use of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching
including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range
grazing.
IND - Industrial Services Supply: Includes use of water for industrial activities that do not
depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply,
hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, or oil well re-pressurization.
RECl - Contact Recreation: Includes use of water for recreational activities involving body
contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are
not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and SCUBA diving, surfing, white water
activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs.
REC2 - Non-Contact Recreation: Includes use of water for recreation involving proximity to
water, but not normally involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is
reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking,
camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in
conjunction with the above activities.
WARM - Warm Freshwater Habitat: Includes uses of water that support warm water
ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats,
vegetation, fish or wildlife, including invertebrates.
T;\WaIer Resources\1325-Bressi\Waier Qiiallly\WQP_Plan-ChediI\1325WQ.cny0902.doc ^
WILD-Wildlife Habitat: Includes uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including
but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife, (e.g.,
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife and food sources.
2.3 Impaired Water Bodies
Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1250, et seq., at 1313(d)),
requires States to identify and list waters that do not meet water quality standards after applying
certain required technology-based effluent limits (impaired water bodies). The list is known as
the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.
San Marcos HA (904.50) was first listed in 1998 on the 303(d) list as having 0.4 miles of
impairment due to a high coliform count at Pacific Ocean, Moonlight State Beach. The proposed
Project is located approximately 5 miles upstream of the listed body within the same hydrologic
area. The Project mnoff will be treated prior to entering the tributary system and should not
adversely affect the 303(d) listed water body. Furthermore, any potential remaining
contaminants would be greatly diluted via advection and dispersion during the 5-mile transport
to the Pacific Ocean. Encinas Creek HA is not on the 303(d) list. It is important to note that
neither proposed nor existing condition drainage pattems contribute runoff to the nearby listed
303(d) water body, Agua Hedionda.
3.0 EXISTING AND DEVELOPED CONDITION POLLUTANTS
Table 3 below lists the anticipated existing and developed condition pollutants. The types of
pollutants for residential land use are documented in the Municipal Califomia Storm Water Best
Management Practice Handbook (Municipal Manual). There is no current sampling data for the
site; therefore, existing pollutant loads are not available. However, Appendix 1 provides
calculations for approximate existing and proposed pollutant loads.
TAWaler Resources\I325-Bressi\Waler Qualily\WQP_Plan-Checkl\1325WQ-city0902.do<: g
Table 3. Existing and Developed Condition Pollutants
Description Typical Source Existing Open Space Residential
Oxygen Demand
and Sediment
Sediment from constmction
and open space areas
Nutrients Fertilizers
Heavy Metals
Organic
Compounds
Open space areas
Trash and Debris
•/ •/ Oil and Grease Streets, Driveways, and other
paved areas
Bacteria & Vimses Open space areas, lawns,
landscaped areas
•/
Pesticides Lawns and landscaped areas
Source: Califomia Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook (Municipal Manual).
The following sections address Project-specific BMPs and BMP plan implementation; however.
Table 4 below lists a number of effective treatment control BMPs for each pollutant category in
Table 3. Table 4 references the Municipal Manual and serves as a compilation of the BMP fact
sheets. Refer to Appendix 4 for copies of the fact sheet used in the formation of Table 4. The
fact sheets provide more detailed BMP technical backup information.
Table 4: BMP Treatment Controls
Description Most Effective BMP Adequate BMP
Oxygen Demand and Sediment: Infiltration
Constmcted Wetlands
Wet ponds
Biofilters
Extended Ponds
Media filtration
Oil/water sep.
Multiple systems
T:\WatCT Resourees\1325-Bressi\WalerQuality\WQP_Plan-Chcckl\1325WQ-cUy0902.doc
Description Most Effective BMP Adequate BMP
Nutrients Constmcted Wetlands Infiltration
Wet ponds
Biofilters
Extended ponds
Media filtration
Oil/water sep.
Multiple systems
Heavy Metals Infiltration
Constmcted wetlands
Wet ponds
Biofilters
Extended ponds
Media filtration
Oil/water sep.
Multiple systems
Organic Compounds Infiltration
Constmcted wetlands
Wet ponds
Biofilters
Extended ponds
Media filtration
Oil/water sep.
Multiple systems
Trash and Debris Screen Filters and Street
Sweeping
Infiltration
Biofilters
Media filtration
Multiple systems
Oil and Grease Infiltration
Constmcted Wetlands
Oil/water sep.
Wet ponds
Biofilters
Extended ponds
Media filtration
Multiple systems
Bacteria and Vimses Media Filtration
Infiltration
Constmcted Wetlands
Extended ponds
Pesticides Infiltration
Constracted wetlands
Infiltration
Wet ponds
Biofilters
Extended ponds
Media filtration
Oil/water sep.
Multiple systems
Source: Modified from Califomia Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks (Municipal Manual).
TAWater ResourcesU325-Bressi\Waler QualityWQP_Plan-Checkl\I325WQ-ciiy0902.doc g
4.0 BMP POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
In general, a number of engineering and climatic constraints ultimately affect the selection of
BMP treatment controls used in a project water quality SWPPP. A critical path item in the BMP
selection process is the contaminant removal efficiency associated with treatment control BMPs.
Table 5 below identifies typical contaminant removal rates for a number of BMPs. Appendix 2
contains a matrix that includes a detailed Ust of BMP treatment control, associated benefits, and
pollutant removal efficiencies that was used in the creation of this table. Additionally, Section
6.2 provides additional information regarding the removal efficiency associated with the CDS
Unit.
Table 5: BMP Pollutant Removal Efficiency
BMP Type Suspended Nitrogen Phosphorous Pathogens Metals
Solids (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Dry Detention
Basin
30-65 15-45 15-45 <30 15-45
Retention
Basins
50-80 30-65 30-65 <30 50-80
Constracted
Wetlands
50-80 <30 15-45 <30 50-80
Infiltration
Basins
50-80 50-80 50-80 65-100 50-80
Porous
Pavement
65-100 65-100 30-65 65-100 65-100
Grass swales 30-65 15^5 15-45 <30 15-45
Vegetated
Filter Strips
50-80 50-80 50-80 <30 30-65
Source: Compiled from Califomia Storm Water Management Practice Handbooks (Municipal Manual).
Structural BMPs such as CDS Units, Stormceptor Units, Vortechs Units and Curb Inlet Inserts
are effective at removing the following pollutants:
TAWater Resources\1325-Bressi\Waler Qualily\WQP_Pian-Checkni325WQ-cily0902.dcx: ^
• Trash and debris (approximate 80-100% removal);
• Sediment and suspended solids (approximate 80-100% removal);
• Oil, grease, diesel, and gasoline (approximate 50-80% removal)
• Metals (approximately less than 50% removal).
The pollutant removal efficiencies for these devices vary widely from various sources, so the
information provided represent approximate averages.
5.0 PROJECT BMP DESIGN CRITERIA
The design of BMPs is primarily based on the numeric sizing criteria defined in Section 1.0. In
general. Table 6 below summarizes the criteria that should be implemented in the design of the
recommended project BMP. Appendix 1 contains the water quality treatment flow and volume
calculations. Exhibits A and B provide the recommended project BMP location and drainage
areas.
Table 6: BMP Design Criteria
BMP BMP Hydrology Treatment Area/Volume Design Constraints
Structural BMP:
CDS Unit,
Stormceptor,
Vortechs Unit,
etc.
Flow-based: 0=CIA
I = 0.2 in/hour
C= ranoff coefficient
A = acreage
Qm=0.2xCxA Locate outside public right-of-
way, access to maintenance
area, utility conflicts
6.0 PROJECT BMP PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
This Section identifies the preferred BMPs to meet the applicable stormwater and water quality
ordinance requirements. This includes incorporating BMPs that minimize runoff contamination
and volume from the site. The plan was developed per the proposed roadway and lot
layout/density associated with the Residential TM. The following Sections address the use of
TAWalerResounxs\1325-Bressi\WalerQualuy\WQP_Plan-Checkl\1325WQ-cily0902.doc JQ
constmction- and post-constmction BMPs. Note that the BMP Project options are discussed in
Section 6.2.
6.1 Construction BMP
During constmction, BMPs such as desilting basins and other erosion control measures will be
employed, consistent with the NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP).
The objectives of the SWPPP are to: (1) identify all pollutant sources, including sources of
sediment that may affect the water quality of stormwater discharges associated with constmction
activity from the constmction site; (2) identify nonstormwater discharges; (3) identify, constmct,
implement in accordance with a time schedule, and maintain BMPs to reduce or eliminate
pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized nonstormwater discharges from the
constraction site during constraction; and (4) develop a maintenance schedule for BMPs installed
during construction designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after constmction is completed
(post-constmction BMPs). BMPs, in addition to desilting basins, may include silt fences, sand
bags, and gravel bags. The SWPPP will be prepared at the time of final engineering.
6.2 Municipal / Post-Construction BMP Plan
PDC has identified a BMP plan for the Bressi Ranch project that should meet the stormwater
requirements identified in the Order. Note, however, that the City has yet to implement its policy
for compliance with the Order, or develop specific BMP Standard Drawings. Therefore, the
following BMP plan is preliminary and is subject to change pending City review and
implementation of future policy requirements.
Note that additional BMP plan options could be developed that utilize an assortment of BMPs,
however, the plan presented herein provides a cost effective water quality approach that
compliments the current site planning. See Exhibits A and B for the BMP locations discussed
below and Table 9 in Appendix 3 for required mitigation flowrates and volumes for each
location and Planning Area
TAWaler Resources\1325-Bressi\Water Quamy\WQP_Plan-Checkl\1325WQ-cityO902.doc J J
BMP Plan:
The Project BMP plan treats storm flows with Continuous Deflective Separation Units (CDS
Units) located at the downstream end of each major storm drain system and specific pad
locations that drain directly into adjacent canyon watercourses. The major CDS Units would be
located at locations A, F, I and J and would accommodate both residential and industrial storm
flows. In addition, it is anticipated that Units would also be constracted at locations B through E
to serve PA-11.
CDS Units are a flow based water quality mitigation device that uses a non-blocking, non-
mechanical screening process to remove pollutants from storm water flow. Their use is
appropriate for stmctural treatment of developed residential and industrial storm ranoff. CDS
units capture fine sands and solids and are capable of removing:
• More than 80% of annual total suspended solids (including sediment);
• 100% of floatables (trash and debris);
• 100% of all particles which are equal to or greater than one-half the screen opening
size, 93% of particles which are one-third the screen opening size, and 53% of all
particles one-fifth the screen opening size; and
• 80-90% of oil and grease with optional sorbent material within the Unit.
The CDS Unit will act as the main BMP for the project. However, in addition to the CDS Units,
non-stractural post-constraction source control BMPs will be used at the site. Source control
BMPs is operational practices that prevent pollution by reducing the pollutants at the source by
not allowing the pollutants to enter the storm water or non-storm water runoff Typically for
large project sites such as Bressi Ranch source control BMPs are used in conjunction with
treatment control (stractural) BMPs to provide effective BMP storm water treatment. The source
controls for the project include 1) education, 2) stenciling curb inlets, 3) permanent landscaping
on graded slopes, 4) good-housekeeping. These BMPs are described in more detail below:
• Education includes handing out information pamphlets regarding pollution. Currently, in
San Diego County, there is a public outreach program called "Think Blue." The Think
TAWaler ResouroesU325-Bressi\Waler Quality\WQP_Plan-Checkl\1325WQ-cityO902.doc J 2
Blue program's goal is to educate the public regarding storm water pollution. The
developer will be responsible for obtaining and disseminating this information.
Information regarding the Think Blue program can be obtained by dialing (888) THINK
BLUE or (888) 844-6525.
• Curb inlet stencils can be obtained from the "I Love a Clean San Diego" organization.
The address is 4335 Ruffin Road, Suite 118, San Diego, CA 92123. The contact person
for "I Love a Clean San Diego" is Mr. Wes Jackson, (858) 467-0103.
• Permanent landscaping on graded slopes will be per the project landscaping plans.
• Good housekeeping practices include the controlled application of carefully selected
fertilizers and pesticides, and a general on-site maintenance, disposal, and street sweeping
program to keep the site free of litter and debris.
Grass lined swales, biofllters, and retention ponds are not proposed for use within the residential
areas due to site grading, layout, and storm drain constraints. However, water quality benefits
will be obtained from the onsite landscaping, parks, and open space areas. Further, two proposed
flood control detention facilities for Bressi Ranch will provide additional water quality benefits.
Specifically the detention basins will provide: 1) reduction of the post-constraction lOO-year
storm event peak discharges to existing conditions, thereby decreasing the potential for
downstream flooding and erosion, and 2) a limited buffer between the two major storm drain
outfalls and the natural watercourses.
The combination of the CDS Units and source control BMPs will provide a water quality
solution that provides pollutant reduction to the maximum extent practicable and should meet the
applicable local and regional water quality regulations.
BMP Plan Assumptions:
The following assumptions were made in developing the BMP plan:
TAWaler ResouiMS\1325-Bressi\Waler Quality\WQP_Plan-ChecklM325WQ-ciiy0902.doc j -J
• Only onsite flows will be treated. All offsite flow treatment will be the responsibility of the
upstream owners.
• Runoff coefficients, 'C values, of 0.55, 0.70, and 0.95 were used in the runoff calculations
for residential, mixed-use, and industrial areas respectively.
• CDS units will be accepted for use in the City of Carlsbad.
• BMPs for adjacent residential and industrial Planning Areas can be combined.
6.3 Funding Source and Maintenance Responsibility
The CDS Unit constraction and long-term maintenance costs are currently being negotiated
between Lennar and the City of Carlsbad. The anticipated maintenance cost of each CDS unit is
approximately $1,000-2,000 annually. Appendix 3 provides approximate CDS Unit constraction
and maintenance costs. Appendix 5 contains a detailed operation and maintenance schedule for
the CDS Units.
7.0 CONCLUSION
This Storm Water Management Plan has been prepared to define Best Management Plan (BMP)
options, or schemes, that satisfy the requirements identified in the following documents: 1)
Carlsbad Municipal Code Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, 2)
Standard Specifications for Public Works Constraction, 3) NPDES General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Constraction Activity issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board, and 4) San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order Number 2001-
01). Specifically, this report includes the Project BMP option and BMP device information.
The Project BMP plan treats storm flows with CDS Units located at the downstream end of each
major storm drain system and specific pad locations that drain directly into adjacent canyon
watercourses. In addition to the CDS Units, non-structural post-construction BMPs will include:
1) education, 2) stenciling curb inlets, 3) permanent landscaping on graded slopes, and 4) good-
housekeeping. The combination of the CDS Units and source control BMPs will provide a water
quality solution that should meet the local and regional regulations.
TAWaler Resourees\1325-Bressf,WalerQualily\WQP.Plan-CheckI\1325WQ-cily0902.doc
APPENDIX 1
Residential Land Use Pollutant Loads and Support Documentation
TAWaterResoiirccs\1325-Bressi\WaterQualily\WQP_Plan-Checkl\1325WQ-city0902.doc
Table 7. Pollutant Load Estimates for the Residential PAs
AVERAGE ANNUAL SURFACE RUNOFF (R)
Cp Ci IMP 1
(In.)
R(l)
in/yr
0.15 0.9 0.4 10 4.5
1
LOADING FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED LAND USE (M,)
PA EMC Rl K Area Ml
(mg/1) (in/yr) (conv. factor) (acres) Ib/yr
PA6 338.2 4.5 0.2266 19.0 6552
PA7 338.2 4.5 0.2266 22.7 7828
PA8 338.2 4.5 0.2266 22.4 7725
PA9 338.2 4.5 0.2266 34.0 11725
PA10 338.2 4.5 0.2266 34.0 11725
PAIIa 338.2 4.5 0.2266 12.0 4138
PAIIb 338.2 4.5 0.2266 12.0 4138
PAIIc 338.2 4.5 0.2266 7.0 2414
PAIId 338.2 4.5 0.2266 11.0 3793
PAI 2a 338.2 4.5 0.2266 13.0 4483
PAI 2b 338.2 4.5 0.2266 15.0 5173
PAIS 338.2 4.5 0.2266 13.0 4483
PAI 4 338.2 4.5 0.2266 1.0 345
PAI 5a 338.2 4.5 0.2266 22.0 7587
PAI 5b 338.2 4.5 0.2266 14.0 4828
Open Space 337.4 1.54 0.2266 192.3 22641
Totals: 444.4 109581
Notes:
1. The above calculations assumes an average imperviousness of 40%
within the residential/mixed use areas (Per Draft San Diego County Hydrology
Manual, Medium Density Residential with 7 DU/acre.
Table 8. Pollutant Load Estimates for Existing Conditions
AVERAGE ANNUAL SURFACE RUNOFF (R)
Cp Cl IMP 1
(in.)
R(l)
in/yr
0.15 0.9 0.005 10 1.54
LOADING FACTOR FOR EXISTING LAND USE (M,)
(FOR ENTIRE SiTE - 585 ac)
Drainage EMC Ri K Area Ml
Basin (mg/1) (in/yr) (conv. factor) (acres) Ib/yr
1 377.4 1.54 0.2266 547 72039
2 377.4 1.54 0.2266 38 5005
Notes:
1. Drainage Basin Number 1 is tributary to San Marcos Creek/Batiquitos Lagoon.
2. Drainage Basin Number 2 is tributary to Encinas along Palomar
Airport Road.
LOADING FACTOR FOR EXiSTING LAND USE (M,)
(WITHIN THE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE/OPEN SPACE AREAS)
Drainage EMC Rl K Area Mi
Basin (mg/1) (in/yr) (conv. factor) (acres) Ib/yr
1 377.4 1.54 0.2266 444.4 58527
Notes:
1. Drainage Basin Number 1 is tributary to San Marcos Creek/Batiquitos Lagoon.
step 4 - Select BMPs
The most cost-effective BMP scenario is selected using Worksheet 2 in Chapter 3. The firet
step in setting up Woiicsheet 2 is to detennine the avraage annual pollutant loafing from the
site prior to development (i.c, pasture with tso BMPs), thc annual poUutant load increase due to
the devdopmeot, mi the average annual pollutant loading under each of die tteee BMP
scenarios identified in Step 3. Tlie purpose is to conqjare projected non-point souice poUutant
loads before md stftcr developraent in order to identify the load reductions th^ couid be
achieved by placing different BMP options. TTie NURP (faita and/or other local stncfies could
be used for pollutant load estimates, mnoff eaimates, or removal efficiencies.
For tiiis exanple. pollutant loa<te were simulated using the Camp Dresser & McKee Inc
(CDM) WateidKd Man^ement Model (WMM). WMM is a spreadsheet-based tod for amiual
and/or sei^onal load ev^uatio^ based on tiie metiiodology outiined in tiie Guktoce Mam^
fnr the Pten^^icm of Pat 1 oftiie NPE^ Permt Antdioaloa for Discb^ges faa Mutmnpal
Senarate Stort^ Sewer Svstems. EPA, 1991. EMCs smd impervious values for WMM are
shown in Table 2. These are based open NURP dstfa and Cn>M experieKc. Fbr WMM,
annual iun<* volumes for ttie pervious^mipcrvious areas in eadi land use categoty are
calcuiated by multiplying tiie average annual rainfall volume by a ranoff axffidenL A ranoff
coefBdcnt of 0.9 is typically used for in^rvious areas (i.e.. 90 percent of tiie rainfafl is
assumed to bc converted to ranoff from tiie impervious fraction of each land use). A pervious
area ranoff coefficient of 0.15 is typicaHy used. Thc total average annu^ surfece ranoff from
a given kmd use L is c^adated by wdghting ttie impervious and pervioi® area ranoff fectors
for each land vsc category as follows:
R^= [Cf + (C,-C^)IMPL] *^ Equation 1
Wbere: = total average annual surfece ranoff from land use L (in/yr)
IMPL = fraction^ inqierviousness of land use L from T^e 2
I = long-term average aimual precipitation (in/yr)
Cp = pervious area nmoff coefficient = 0.15
CJ = impervious iuea runoff coefBdent = 0.90.
Tlie WMM generates nonpoint source pollution loads (exprrased as Ibs/yr) tiiat vary by land
use aad tiie petcent imperviousness assodated witti each land use. Hie poltotion loajfing
factor ML is con^ted for land use L by the following equation:
ML = EMCL *RL*K*AL Equation 2
\^rbere: M,. = loading factor for land use L (Bi/yr)
EMCL = event mean cooceatiatioa (rf nmoff from land use L (mg/L);
EMCL vanes by land use and by poQutant
= total average annod surface tunoff firaa land use L compated from
Equatioo 1 On/yr)
K = 0.2266, a unit coaveraoo constant
A,^ = area vt land ose L (aoesX
HK loads arc tiien summed for a ^ven area or sceaaifo to produce summaiy results witiiout
W^. B\ff effidracics arc flien a^ed as fracfioiffl feffio^ coeffidedts-to iKluce annual
loads.
Monldpal Handbook B-4 March, 1993
I
Event Mean Concentrations And Impervious Percentages
Assifned Por The Watershed Manageinent Model
Land i Use
Fore^Qpen
Percent
Impervious "1
me
TO
mg/L
5T m ITS'
"ITF
mM^
NulricnLs
m: TO TO
mg/L
MF
"TO mg/L
"TO TO
TO
ms
Heavy Metitls"
TO
Zn
TOT TO TO
mi m
TO AgTidultOFe/Pasture
Cropfefid
Low PensUy Mdential
ii''Dcn!
TOT TOT try 3T
3T •m
im m
-mm im
TO
TO
TO
TO TO
TO
TO
TO
TO TO TO
TO
•
Medibiti Density
Residential 30.0% 10.8 83 140
•m
100 0.47 0.16 2.35 0.96 0.18 0.05
TO
0.18
TO
0.002
TOI Hifih tensity Residentiar
OffltkLight Industrial
Hea^y yiustfial
75M
Tf
Tf
15
TT 1» TO TO TO
T
mm
"TOT
Tf
IT in
TO TO
IT "IS
m
m
TO TO
TO
TO
TO TO
TO TO
TO TO
TO
TII
TO
TO
TOT TO
TO rm
TTf
TO TO TO
TO
TO TO TO
TO TO
TO
TO
•TO.
TO TO
TO TO
Tmjl TO50I
im
i
Souilce: EPA, 1983 and CDM experience
APPENDIX 2
Nationwide Treatment Control BMP Information
TAWaterResources\1325-Bressi\WalerQuaIily\WQP_Plan-Chcckl\1325WQ-city0902.doc
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
TrealmenI Conlrol (Source) Limitations Benefits Removal Efficiency Capital Cost
(approximate)
O&M Cost
(approximate)
InfUtration - a family of treatment
systems in which the majority of the
runoff from small storms is infiltrated in
the ground rather lhan discharged into a
surface water body. (I)
hifiliriiiioii Trench - is an excavated
trench (3 to 12 feet deep), backtilled with
stone aggregate, and lined wilh filler
fabric. (23)
it is used to treat a small poriion of the
runoff by detaining storm water for short
periods until it percolates down to the
gioundwater table. (21)
Useful life is usually around 10 years.
(20)
•potential loss of infiltrative
capaciiy. (I)
•applicability depends on ^
specific site
characteristics/opportunities
(slope, soil types, proximity
to water table). (23)
'"potential groundwater
contamination. (I)
•not suitable for sites that
contain chemical or
hazardous material. (23)
*may need to be preceded
by appropriale pretreatment.
(23)
•relatively short life span.
(23)
•efficient removal of
poUulants. (I)
•can recharge groundwater
supplies. (2)
•provides localized
streambank erosion control.
(2)
•easy lo fil into unutilized
areas of development sites.
(2)
•an effective runoff
control. (I)
•increases baseflow in
nearby streams. (23)
•Low land use
requireinenl. (20)
• nitrogen compounds
40% to iO%. (2)
• phosphorus compounds
40% to 80%. (2)
• combined nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds
45% to 75% (depending on
design). (8)
• total suspended solids
7.5%. (20)
•total phosphorous 60%'.
(20)
• total nitrogen 55%. (20)
•COD 65%. (20)
• Lead 65%. (20)
•Zinc 65%. (20)
• .$4,900/acre
(prorated using
ENR index from
1992 cost). (5)
• $3.6 to
$l0.70/cubic feet
storage (prorated
using ENR index
from 1986 cost).
(20)
• $ 1,800/acre/year
(prorated using
ENR index (rum
1992 cost). (5)
• 9% of Capital
Cost (20)
Pond (Basin) - consist of shallow, tlat
basins excavated in pervious ground, with
inlet and outlet struclure.<i to regulate
llow. (19)
Useful Life is usually around 25-years.
(20)
•potential loss of infiltrative
capacity. (1)
•low removal of dissolved
polluuinls in very coarse
soils. (1)
•possible nuisance (odor,
mosquito). (2)
•t'requcnl maintenance
requirement. (2)
•risk of groundwater
contamination. (1)
• High land use requirement.
(20)
•achieves high levels of
particulate pollutant
removal. (1)
• can recharge groundwater
supplies. (2)
•an effective runoff
control. (1)
•can serve tributary areas
up to 50 acres. (I)
•provides localized
streambank erosion control.
(2)
•co.st effective. (2)
• nitrogen compounds
40%. to 80%.. (2)
• phosphorus compounds
W% to 80%.. (2)
• combined nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds
45% to 75'/i. (depending on
design). (8)
• total suspended .solids
75%. (20)
•tolal phosphorous 65%.
(20)
• total nitrogen 60%. (20)
•COD 65%.. (20)
• Lead 65'/r.. (20)
• Zinc 65%. (20)
• $36,900/million
gallons (prorated
using ENR index
from 1992 cost).
(5)
• .t0.60 to
$ 1/cubic feel
storage (prorated
using ENR index
from 1986 cost).
(20)
• $l,200/million
gallons/year
(prorated using
ENR index from
1992 cost). (5)
• 7% of Capital
Cost (20)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Control (Source)
Porous Pavement - is an alternative to
conventional pavement whereby runoff is
diverted through a porous asphalt layer
and into an underground stone reservoir.
(10)
Useful life is around 10 years. (20)
Concrele Grid Pavement - are lattice grid
structures with grassed or pervious
malerial placed in Ihe grid openings. (1)
Useful life is usually around 20 years.
(20)
Infiltration Drainfields - a system
composed ofa pretreatment slructure, a
manifold system, and a drainfield. (28)
Limitations
/potential loss of infiltrative
capacity. (I)
>75%. failure rate due to
clogging, resurfacing or just
failure afler construction.
(10)
/high maintenance -
requires special vacuum
sweeping or jet hosing. (10)
>may require twice as much
material as without porous
pavement to achieve the
needed strength. (10)
Jiunsuilable in fill sites and
steep slopes. (5)
Jl potential risk of
groundwater contamination.
(1)
•limiled efficiency (6
months). (23)
Benefits
>require regular
maintenance. (20)
>not suitable for high traffic
areas. (20)
>potential groundwater
contamination. (20)
/only feasible where soil is
permeable. (20)
•high maintenance when
sediment loads ure heavy.
(28)
•short life span ifnot well
maintained. (28)
•nol suitable in regions with
clay or silty soils. (28)
•anaerobic conditions could
clog the soil. (28)
•potential groundwater
contamination. (28)
/achieves high levels of
pollutant removal. (1)
/groundwater recharge. (2)
/localize streambank
erosion control. (2)
/reduced land
consumplion. (2)
/elimination of curbs and
gutters. (2)
/safer driving surface. (2)
/ groundwaier recharge.
(20)
/can provide peak llow
control. (20)
/groundwater recharge.
(28)
•used 10 conlrol runoff.
(28)
Removal Efficiency
• nitrogen compounds
60% lo 80%. (2)
• phosphorus compounds
40%. to 80%. (2)
•nitrogen and phosphorus
compounds 45% to 75%
(depending on design), (8)
• sediment 82 lo 95%. (23)
• lolal phosphorus
compounds 65%. (23)
• total nitrogen compounds
80 to 85%. (23)
• total suspended solids
90%. (20)
•total phosphorous. 65%
(20)
• total nitrogen 85%. (20)
•COD 80%. (20)
• Lead 100%. (20)
•Zinc 100%. (20)
•total nilrogen 90%. (20)
• lotai phosphorus
compounds 90%. (20)
• total suspended solids
90%. (20)
•COD 90%. (20)
• Lead 90%. (20)
• Zinc 90%. (20)
• depends on design - little
moniloring data currenlly
available. Potentially
IOO'/(. of pollutant could be
prevented from entering
surface water. (28)
Capital Cost
(approximate)
• .tl23,000/acre
(prorated using
ENR index from
1992 cost). (5)
• $2.10/square
feet (prorated
using ENR index
from 1987 cost)
(incremental cost
beyond Ihe
conventional
asphalt pavement).
(20)
• .tl.7 -$3.5/ft'
(prorated using
ENR index from
1981 cost)
(incremental cost
beyond the
conventional
asphalt pavement)
(20)
Approx. $72,000
for a drainfield
with dimensions:
100 fl long, 50
feet wide, 8 feel
deep with 4 fl
cover. (28)
O&M Cost
(approximate)
• $250/acre/year
(prorated using
ENR index from
1992 cost). (5)
• $0.14/square
feet/year (prorated
using ENR index
from 1987 cost),
(incremental cost
beyond the
conventional
asphalt pavement).
(20)
• -$0.07/tr feet
(prorated using
ENR index from
1981 cost)
(incremental cost
beyond the
conventional
asphalt pavement)
(20)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Control (Source) Limitations Benefits Removal Efficiency Capital Cost
(approximate)
O&M Cost
(approximate)
Wet Detention Ponds - small ariificial
impoundments wilh emergcni wetland
vegeiation around the perimeter designed
for the removal of particulate matter and
dissolved nutrients. (19)
Useful life is around 50 years. (20)
/maintaining oxygen supply
in the pond. (1)
/need of supplemental
water to maintain water
level. (1)
/land constraints, infeasible
in dense urban areas. (1)
/local climate might affect
biological uptake. (27)
/eventual need for costly
sediment removal. (2)
• potential nuisance
(mosquito, odor, algae). (2)
•potential stratification and
anoxic conditions, (27)
/achieves high levels of
soluble and organic
nutrient removal. (2)
/creation of local wildlife
habitat. (2)
/decrease potential for
downstream Hooding. (27)
/recreational and
landscape amenities. (2)
/decrease potential
downstream stream bank
erosion. (19)
• nitrogen 20% to 60%. (2)
• phosphorus 40% to 807f.,
(2)
• nilrogen & phosphorous
30% to 70% (depending on
volume ralio). (8)
• total suspended solids
50% to 90% (27) & 60%
(20).
• total phosphorus 30%. to
90%. (27) & 45% (20).
• total nitrogen 35%. (20)
• soluble nutrients 40% to
80%.. (27)
• lead 70%. lo 80% (27) &
75%. (20).
• zinc 40% to 50% (27) &
60% (20).
• COD 40%. (20)
$17.50 to $35 per
cubic meter of
storage area (27)
3 to 5 percent of
construciion cost
per year (27)
Wetlands - constructed wetlands are a
single stage treatment sysiem consisting
ofa forebay and micro pool with aquatic
plants. They remove high levels of
particulate, as well as some dissolved
contaminants. (19)
Useful life is around 50 years. (20)
/need of supplemental
water lo maintain water
level. (1)
/potential nutrient release in
Ihe winter. (19)
/reduction in hydraulic
capacity wilh plant growth.
(19)
/wetland area less than 2%
of watershed area. (10)
•potential groundwater
contamination. (26)
• high land requirements.
(20)
/passive recreation and
wildlife support. (1)
/improve downstream
water and habitat quality.
(26)
/flood attenuation. (26)
/achieves high levels
pollutant removal. (I)
• total suspended solids
67% (26) & 65% (20).
• tolal phosphorus 49%.
(26)&25% (20).
• lolal nitrogen 28% (26) &
20%. (20).
• organic carbon 34%. (26)
• COD 50%. (20)
• petroleum hydrocarbons
87%. (26)
• cadmium 36%., (26)
• copper 41%.. (26)
• lead 62% (26) & 65%
(20).
• zinc 45% (26) & 35%
(20).
• bacteria 77%. (26)
$26,000 to
$55,000 per acre
of wetland. (26)
2 percent of
construciion cost
per year. (26)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Conlrol (Source) Limitations Benefits Removal Efficiency Capital Cost
(approximate)
O&M Cost
(approximale)
Biofilters • Systems designed lo pass
storm water runoff slowly over a
vegetated surface in the form of a swale
or strip lo filter pollutants and lo infiltrate
the runoff. (19)
Bioretention - system designed to treat
runoff. The runoff is conveyed as sheet
llow to the treatment area, which consists
ofa grass buifer strip, sand bed, ponding
area, organic layer or mulch layer,
planting soil, and plants. (33)
•cold climate may hinder
infiltrative capaciiy. (33)
•nol suitable for slopes
greater than 20 percent, (33)
•clogging may occur in high
sediment load areas, (33)
•enhance quality of
downstream water bodies.
(33)
•improves area's
landscaping. (33)
•provide shade and wind
breaks. (33)
• total Phosphorus 70 to
83%. (33)
• metals (copper, lead,
zinc) 93 to 98%., (33)
• TKN 68% to 80%, (33)
• lolal suspended solids
90%. (33)
• organics 90%. (33)
• bacteria 90%. (33)
$500 for new
development of a
bioretention,
$6,500 for
retrofitting a site
into a bioretetion
area (33)
Vej-etated Swale - is a broad, shallow
channel (typically trapezoidal shaped)
with a dense stand of vegetation covering
the side slopes and botiom. (29)
Useful life is around 50 years. (20)
/generally incapable of
removing nutrients. (2)
•can become drowning
hazards, mosquito breeding
areas. (29)
/not appropriate for steep
topography, very fiat grades.
(29)
/tributary area limited to a
maximum of 5 acres. (19)
/difficuh U) avoid
channelization, (19)
•ineffective in large storms
due to high velocity Hows.
(29)
/ design to convey runoff
of 2 year storm, with
freeboard of 10 year storm.
(19)
• low land requirement.
(20)
/suitable for small
residential areas, (I)
/can removes particulate
pollutants at rates similar to
wel ponds, (1)
•reduction of peak fiows,
(29)
•lower capital cost. (29)
•promotion of runoff
infiltration. (29)
• low land requiremenis.
(20)
• nitrogen 0 to 60%- (2)
• total nitrogen 10%, (20)
• phosphorus 0 to 60% (2)
• total phosphorus 9%. (29)
& 20%. (20).
• COD 25%.. (20)
• oxygen demanding
substances 67%. (29)
• total suspended solids
81% (29) & 60% (20).
• nitrate 38%.. (29)
• hydrocarbons 62%. (29)
• cadmium 42%. (29)
• lead 67% (29) & 70%
(20),
•zinc 71% (29) & 60%
(20).
• copper 51%.. (29)
• $6.80 to $12.50
per linear foot
(prorated using
ENR index from
1987 cost). (29)
•SIO. 8(3 to $63.40
per linear fool
(prorated using
ENR index from
1991 cost). (29)
• typical total for
a 1.5 fl, deep, 10 ft
wide, 1,000 ft long
Low - $8,100
Moderate -
$14,870
High - $21,640
Prorated using
ENR index from
1991 cost).
(29)
• $0.73 - $0.95
per linear foot
(prorated using
ENR index from
1991 cost). (29)
• $l/linear foot
9proraled using
ENR index from
1987 cost). (20)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatinent Control (Source) Limilations Benefits Removal Efficiency Capital Cost
(approximale)
O&M Cost
(approximale)
Infiltration (Veyetalive Filter) Strip - are
broad surfaces with a full grass cover that
allows storm water to fiow in a relatively
thin sheets (21)
Useful life is around 50 years (20),
•sheet fiow may be difficult
to attain. (1)
•nol appropriale for steep
slopes. (19)
•tributary area limited to 5
acres. (19)
•suitable for parking lots.
(1)
•slows runoff fiow. (1)
•removes particulate
pollutants. (1)
• nitiogen 0 to 40%.. (2)
• phosphorus 0 to 40%, (2)
• total suspended solids
65%., (20)
• total phosphorous 40%,
(20)
• tolal nitrogen 40%. (20)
• COD 40%. (20)
• lead 45%. (20)
• zinc 60%.. (20)
• $3,100/acre
(prorated using
ENR index from
1992 cost).
(5)
• $310/acie/yr
(prorated using
ENR index from
1992 cost). (5)
•$139 to
$l,IOO/acre/year
(prorated using
ENR index from
1987 cost). (20)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Control (Source) Limitations Benefits Removal Efficiency Capital CosI O&M Cosi
(approximale) (approximale)
Extended Detention Basins - consist of a •occasional nuisance in •creation of local wildlife • nitiogen 20% to 60%. $123,000/million • $l,230/million
settling basin with an outlet sized to inundated portion. (19) habitat. (2) (2) gallons gallons/year
remove particulate matter by slowly •inability to vegetation may •recreational use in • phosphorus 20% lo 80% (prorated using (prorated using
releasing accumulated runoff over a 24 to result in erosion and re-inundated portion. (2) (2) & 10% 10 .30%. (10) ENR index from ENR index from
40 hour period. "Dry" detention basins suspension. (1) •can remove soluble • nilrogen and phosphorus 1992 cost). 1992 cost).
may be designed to empty between •limited orifice diameter nutrients by shallow marsh 30% to 70% (depending on (5) (5)
usages. (19) preclude use in small or permanent pool. (2) volume ralio). (8) • 4%. of capilal
Useful life is usually 50 years. (20) watersheds. (1) •suitable for sites over 10 • soluble nulrienls - low or cost, (20)
•requires differential in acres. (10) negative. (10)
elevation at inlel und oullei. •temporary storage of • lolal suspended solids
(1) runoff. (1) 45% (20) & 88% (44).
•frequenl sediment •no need of supplemental • nilrale 15% (44),
maintenance. (19) water. (1) • nitrile 61% (44),
• High land requirement. •proiection for downstream • oil and grease 56%., (44)
(20) channel erosion. (2) • fecal coliform 45%. (44)
tolal petroleum
hydrocarbons 17% lo 20%.
(44)
• TKN 40%. (44)
• ammonia 5%. (440
•tolal phosphorous 25%
(20) & 57% (44).
• total nitrogen 30%. (20)
•COD 20%) (20) & (44).
• lead 20% (20) & 55%
(44).
• zinc 20% (20) & 47%
(44).
• chromium 68%. (44)
* copper 37%. (44)
• nickel 62%. (44)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Controi (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Conlrol (Source) Limilations Benefits Removal EITiciency Capilal Cost
(approximale)
O&M Cosl
(approximale)
Modular Treatment Sy.stems
StormTreal''"' Sysiem (STS) - treatment
technology consisting of a series of
sedimentation chambers and constructed
wetlands. The 9.5 feel diameter recycled
polyethylene modular treats storm waler
with sedimentation chambers, where
pollutants are removed Ihrough
sedimentation and filtration, then Ihe
water is conveyed lo a surrounding
constructed wetland. Vegetation in the
wetland varies depending on local
conditions. Because the system is
relatively new, there is no data available
on lifetime of the system. It is estimated
that the plant.s and the gravel in the
system need to be replaced every 10-20
years. (32)
•may require modifications
to function in different
environments. (32)
• relatively new and remains
10 be tested in different
geographical localions.
•protect groundwater by
removing pollulunls prior
to infiltration. (32)
•high removal rates. (32)
•spill containment feature.
(32)
•soil types and high vvaier
table won't limil
effectiveness. (32)
• fecal coliform bacteria
97%. (32)
• lolal suspended solids
99% (32)
• COD 82%. (32)
• tolal dissolved nitrogen
77%. (32)
• phosphorus 90%.. (32)
• lolal petroleum
hydrocarbons 90%.. (32)
• lead 77%. (32)
• chromium 98%. (32)
• zinc 90%. (32)
$4,900 per unit +
$500 to $ 1,000
installation cost +
$350 to $400 for
additional malerial
(32)
$80 10 $120 per
lank for removal
of sedimenl (32)
Hydrodynamic Separators - are fiow-
through structures with a settling or
separation unit to remove sediments and
other pollutants that are widely used.
With proper upkeep, useful life is over 30
years. (25)
Downstream Defender™ - designed to
capture settleable solids, floatables and oil
and grease. It utilizes a sloping base, a dip
plate and internal components lo aid in
pollutant removal. (25)
• requires frequent
inspections and maintenance
is site-specific. (25)
Can achieve 90% particle
removal for flows from
0.75 cfs 10 13 cfs (25)
$10,000 to
$35,000 per pre
cast unit (23)
Conliinioiis Deflection Separator (CDS) •
pre cast unils placed downstream of
freeway drain inlets to capture sediment
and debris. These underground units
create a vortex of water that allows water
to escape through the screen, while
contaminants are deflected into the sump.
(21)
• suitable for gross pollutant
removal. (21)
/intended. 10 screen litter,
fine sand and larger
panicles. (21)
/act as a firsl screen
inlluence for irush and
debris, vegetative material,
oil and grease, heavy
metals. (21)
oil and grease - 77% (34) $2,300 to $7,200
per cubic feel
second capacity
(23)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
TrealmenI Conlrol (Souice) Limitations Benefils Removal EITiciency Capital Cosl
(approximale)
O&M Cost
(approximate)
Continuous Deflection Separator (CDS)
with Sorbents. Application of different
types of sorbents in ihe CDS units,
OARS^*^ - is a rubber type off sorbent
(34)
Rubberizer - is composed of a
mixture of hydrocarbon polymers
and additives. (34)
Aluminum Silicate:
Xsorb™ is made from a natural
blend of silica minerals, which
when expanded in our unique
manufacturing process, make a
white granular malerial that
absorbs spills instantly on
contact (web)
Sponge Rok™ - primarily sold as
a soil bulking agenl (34)
Nanofiber™ - is a polypropylene
adsorbent. (34)
• requires frequent
inspections and maintenance
is site-specific, (25)
•sorbents remove many
limes their own weight (34)
•could be used oil spill
control, (34)
OARS:
oil and grease - 82%. 83%,
86%, 94%. (34)
Rubbei'izer:
oil and grease 86%, (34)
Xsorb:
oil and grease 79%. (34)
Sponge Rok:
oil and grease 41%. (34)
Nanofiber:
oil and grease 87%. (34)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Control (Source) Limilations Benefils Removal Efficiency CapituI Cosl
(upproximale)
O&M Cost
(approximale)
Sloniiceplor® • This system is a
stormwater interceptor that efficiently
removes sedimenl and oil from
stormwater runoff and stores these
pollutants for safe and easy removal.
Units are available in prefabricated sizes
up to 12 feet in diameter by 6 to 8 feet
deep. They re designed lo trap and retain
a variety of non-point source pollutants,
using a by-pass chamber and treatment
chamber. A fiberglass insert separates the
upper (by-pass) and lower
(separation/holding) chambers. (25)
• requires frequent
inspections and maintenance
is site-specific. (25)
•use for redevelopment
projecis of more than 2,500
sq. feel where there was no
pervious slorm waler
managemenl. (25)
•projects that double the
impervious layer. (25)
•easy to design in new or
retrofit applications. (35)
•inexpensive to service and
maintain. (35)
•internal bypass prevents
release of irapped
poUulants. (35)
•ideal for highways,
industrial properties, gas
stations, parking lots and
sites where Ihere is a
potential for oil or chemical
spills.
• tolal suspended solids
80%. (35)
• free oils 95%. (35)
•oil 98.5%. (36)
• inorganic sediment 80%.
(36)
• organic sediment 70%.
(36)
• total suspended solids
51.5%. (36)
• oil and grease 43,2%.
(36)
• zinc 39,1%. (36)
• total organic carbon
31.4%. (36)
• chemical oxygen demand
26.0%.. (36)
• lead 51.2%. (36)
• chromium 40.7%.. (36)
• copper 21.5%. (36)
• iron 52.7%. (36)
• calcium 17,9%. (36)
$7,600 to $33,560
per unit (23)
$ 1,000/year per
siruclure (23)
Vortechs''" - a major advancement in oil
and grit separator technology, Vortechs
unils removes grit, contaminated
sediments, heavy metals, and oily fioating
pollutants from surface runoff, it is a
stormwater treatment system consisting of
four structures to treat stormwater: a
baffle wall, a grit chamber, an oil
chamber and a flow control chamber.
This system combines swirl-concentrator
and flow-control technologies. (25)
•most effedive when
separation of heavy
particulate or floatable from
wet weather runoff. (25)
•suspended solids are not
effectively removed. (25)
• requires frequent
inspections and maintenance
is site-specific. (25)
•suited for areas wilh
limiled land available (25)
•good for "holspols" such
as gas stations (high
concentrations). (25)
•able to treat runoff fiows
from 1.6 cfs to 25 cfs. (25)
• total suspended solids
84%. (37)
$10,000 to
$40,000 per unit
(not including
inslallalion) (23)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Conlrol (Source) Limilations Benefils Removal Efficiency Capital Cost
(approximale)
O&M Cosl
(approximate)
Multi-Chambered Treatment Trains
(MCTT) - consist of a three treatment
mechanisms in three different chambers.
1) catch basin - screening process lo
remove large, grit sized material, 2)
settling chamber - removing settleable
solids and associated constituents with
plate separators and sorbent pads, 3)
media filter - uses a combinaiion of
sorption (layers of sand and peat covered
by filter fabric) and ion exchange for the
removal of soluble constituent.s. (21)
•high maintenance - require
renewing sorbent pads,
removing sediment,
replacing clogged media.
(21)
•treats storm water at
critical source areas wilh
limited space. (21)
• toxicity 70%. to 100%.
(24)
• chemical oxygen demand
0%. to 100%. (24)
• lolal suspended solids
70% to 90% (24)
• approx.
$375,000 to
$900,000
(depending on
drainage area)
Media Filtration - these are usually two
or three stage constructed treatment
systems, composed ofa pretreatment
settling basin and a filter bed containing
filter media (and a discharge chamber).
(19)
Sand Filler - the filler is designed lo hold
and treat the first one half inch of runoff
and the pollutant removal abilily ofthe
sand filter has been found to be very
good.(3)
•nol effective treating liquid
or dissolved pollutants (19)
/routine maintenance
requirement. (19)
/significant headloss. (19)
/severe clogging potential.
(19)
•media may be replaced 3 to
5 years. (30)
•climate condilions may
limit filter's performance.
(30)
/high removal rates for
sedimenl, BOD, and fecal
coliform bacteria. (30)
•can reduce groundwaier
contamination. (30)
/requires less land, can be
placed underground. (19)
/.suitable for individual
developments. (1)
/minimum depth of 18
inches. (1)
/tributary ureas of up lo
100 acres. (19)
• fecal coliform 76%. (30)
• BOD 70 %. (30)
• total suspended solids
70 %. (30)
• total organic carbon 48%.
(30)
• total nilrogen 21%. (30)
• tolal phosphorus 33'/f.
(30)
• Lead 45%.. (30)
• zinc 45%, (30)
• iron 45%, (30)
•$18,500(1 acre
drainage area)
(1997). (30)
• $6,940 to
$11,600 (less lhan
1 acre - casl in
place) (prorated
from 1997 prices
using ENR index).
(30)
• sand filter vault
$1,790 (prorated
from 1997 prices
using ENR index).
(18)
• sand filter basin
$3,370 (prorated
from 1997 prices
using ENR index),
(18)
• 5 percent of the
initial conslruclion
cost. (30)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Control (Source) Limilations Benefits Removal Efficiency Capital Cost
(approximate)
O&M Cosl
(approximate)
Activated Carbon - has long been used in
the chemical process industry and in
hazardous waste cleanup as an effective
method for removing trace organics from
a liquid. (3)
•heavy maintenance
requirement. (19)
•severe clogging potential.
(19)
•limiled by the number of
adsorption sites in the
media. (3)
•small net surface charge
and ineffective ut removing
free hydrated metal ions. (3)
•can be placed
underground. (19)
•less space required. (1)
•effective in removing
trace organics from liquid.
(3)
•suitable for individual
developments. (1)
• $l/lbor$3l5/cy
(prorated from
1997 prices using
ENR index).
(18)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Conlrol (Source) Limitations Benefits Removal EITiciency Capilal Cosl O&M Cost
(approximate) (approximale)
Composted Leaves - made from yard •heavy maintenance •can be placed * lolal suspended solids • $1.30/cy • $2,400/year
waste, primarily leaves, have been requirement. (19) underground. (19) 84%. (3), -155% to 72% (prorated from (prorated from
advertised to have a very high capacity •severe clogging potential. •no vegetation required. (22). 1997 prices using 1998 prices using
for adsorbing heavy metals, oils, greases. (19) (19) • petroleum hydrocarbons ENR index). ENR index). (22)
nutrients and organic toxins due to the •in some cases, negative •smaller land area required. 87%(3), 4%. to 64% (22). (IS)
humic content of the compost. (3) removal efficiencies wilh (3) • chemical oxygen demand • $27,000 to treat
increased loads have been •suitable for individual 67% (3), 32% to 38% (22). 1 cfs (prorated
reported. (22) developments. (1) • total Phosphorus 40% (3) from 1998 prices
& -320% to 28% (22). using ENR index).
•TKN-133% to 43%. (22) (22)
• fecal coliform 6% lo.
80%, (22)
• oil and grease 0% to
44%. (22)
• total petroleum
hydrocarbons 33% lo 64%.
-(22)
• ammonia 41% lo 64%.
(22)
•nitrate-172%to7%. (22)
• nitrite -233%. to 29%,
(22)
• chromium 0% lo 25%.
(22)
• copper 67% (3) & 4%. to
9% (22).
• zinc 88% (3) & 46%. to
65% (22).
• aluminum 87%. (3)
• nickel 33% lo 50%.. (22)
•lead 0% to 17%. (22)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Conlrol (Source) Limitations Benefils Removal Efficiency Capital Cost
(approximale)
O&M Cosl
(approximale)
Peat Moss • is partially decomposed
organic material, excluding coal, thai is
formed from dead plant remains in water
in the absence of air. The physical
structure and chemical composiiion of
peal is determined by the types of plants
from which it is formed. Peat is
physically and chemically complex and is
highly organic. (3)
•heavy maintenance
requirement. (19)
•severe clogging potential.
(19)
•can have a high hydraulic
conductivity. (3)
Peat-Sand Filter - man made filtration
device, has good grass cover on the lop
underlain by twelve to eighteen inches of
peal. The peat layer is supported by a 4
inch layer of peat and sand mixture which
supported by a 20 to 24 inch layer of fine
10 medium sand. Under the sand is gravel
and thc drainage pipe. (3)
•heavy maintenance
requirement. (19)
•severe clogging potential.
(19)
•can be placed
underground. (19)
•no vegeiation required.
(19)
•smaller land area required.
(3)
•polar and has a high
specific adsorption for
dissolved solids. (3)
•excellent natural capaciiy
for ion exchange. (3)
•excellent substrate for
microbial growth and
assimilation of nutrients
and organic waste material.
(3) .
$25 to$l05/cy
(prorated from
1997 prices using
ENR Index). (18)
•can be placed
underground. (19)
•less space required (1)
•suitable for individual
developments, (I)
•works best during
growing seas<in as grass
cover can provide
additional nutrient removal.
(3)
• suspended Solids 90%
(3) & 80%. (20).
• tolal phosphorus 70% (3)
& 50% (22),
• total nitrogen 50% (3) &
35% (20),
• BOD 90%. (3)
• bacteria 90%. (3)
• irtice metals 80%.. (3)
• lead 60%. (20)
• zinc 65%. (20)
• COD 55%. (20)
$6.50 per cubic
foot of malerial
(prorated from
1990 prices using
ENR index). (20)
7 % of
construciion cosl.
(20)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Trealment Control (Source) Limilations Benefits Removal Efficiency Capital Cost
(approximate)
O&M Cost
(approximate)
Waler Qualily Inlets - commonly known
as oil/grit or oil/water separators. These
devices typically consist of a series of
chambers, a sedimentation chamber, an
oil separation chamber and u discharge
chamber. (31)
Useful life is usually 50 years. (20)
•limiled drainage area (1
acre or less). (31)
•high sediment loads can
interfere abilily lo separate
oil and grease. (31)
•limited hydraulic and
residual .storage. (31)
•frequent maintenance. (31)
•residual may be considered
loo loxic for landfill
disposal. (31)
•recommended oil/waler
separalors be used for spill
conlrol as their primary
application. (42)
•re-suspension of pollutants.
(36)
• small flow capacity. (31)
•reduction of hydrocarbon
contamination. (31)
•effectively trap trash,
debris, oil and grease (3 1)
•ideal for smail, highly
impervious area. (31)
•ideal for mainienancc
stations. (36)
• low land requirement.
(20)
• sediments 20%. to 40%.
(31)
• efficiency directly
proportional lo discharge
rale. (31)
• total suspended solids
15%. 10 35%. (20)
• total phosphorous 5%.
(20)
• total nitrogen 5% to 20%.
(20)
• COD 5%. (20)
• lead 15%, (20)
• zinc 5%. (20)
$5,900 to $18,900
for cast in place
waler qualily
inlets (prorated
from 1993 prices
using ENR Index).
(31)
Calch Basin Inlet Devices - devices that
are inserted into storm drain inlets to filler
or absorb sedimenl, pollutants, and oil
and grease (21)
* not feasible for larger lhan
5 acres. (20)
• high removal efficiency
for large particles and
debris for prelrealmenl.
(20)
• low land requirement.
(20)
• flexibility for retrofit of
existing systems. (20)
Stream Guard Inserts - are sock-type
inserts lhal allow collected water to filter
Ihrough the geolexlile fabric. (21)
•maintenance includes
removal of sediment and
debris. (21)
•configured lo remove
sedimenl, constituents
adsorbed to sedimenl, and
oil and grease. (21)
approx. $50,000 lo
$100,000 per
catch basin. (21)
Fossil Filler Inserts - are trt)ugh-lype of
inserts filled with granular amorphous
alumina silicate media. Removes
nollutants throutih sorption. (21)
•mainlcnance includes
removal of sedimenl and
debris. (21)
•configured to remove
sediment, constiiiiciil.s
adsorbed lo sediment, and
oil and grease. (21)
approx. $50,000 lo
$100,000 per
catch basin. (21)
OARS™ • is a rubber type of sorbent
insert (34)
• free oil and grease 88%
10 91%, (39)
• emulsified oil and grease
3%, (39)
Nanofiber™ - is a polypropylene
adsorbent type of insert. (34)
• free oil and grease 86')}.,
92'.X., 78%, 85%. (39)
Nationwide Examples of Treatment Control (Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Treatment Control (Source) Limitations Benefils Removal Efficiency Capilal Cosl
(approximate)
O&M Cost
(approximale)
Aluminum Silicate:
X.wrb™ is made from a natural
blend of silica minerals, which
when expanded in Ihe unique
manufacturing process, makes a
white granular material lhat
absorbs spills instantly on
conlact.
Sponge Rok™ - primarily sold as
a soil bulking agent (34)
• free oil and grease 88%,
91%, 94%, 89%. (39)
• emulsified oil and grease
0%. (39)
Curb Inlel Drain Diaper Insert - sorbent
type diaper placed at the catch basin
insert. (40)
$125 per unit. (40)
Storin Cleni Filter and Mulli Cell Flow
Through Filler - developed by Besl
Managemenl Technologies, the filters are
used typically in maintenance facilities
and staging areas were sediment and
hydrocarbons are present. (41)
• multi cell fiow
ihrough fillers -
$786 to $1233
depending on pipe
size (6" to 12")
• storm clenz
filters - $339 to
$702 depending
on filler insert
size. (41)
• fiow Ihrough
filter absorbents
$24 to $44
depending on size,
• storm clenz
absorbents $24 to
$ 54 depending on
size. (41)
Some Examples ofTemporary Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs
activity)
(typically used dufing constfuction
Temporary Seeding of Stripped Areas •
The establishment ofa temporary
vegetative cover on disturbed areas by
seeding with rapidly growing plants. This
provides temporary soil stabilization to
areas which would remain bare for more
than seven days where permanent cover is
not necessary or appropriate. (42)
•Temporary seeding is only
viable when there is a
sufficient window in time
for plants to grow and
establish cover. During the
establishment period the
bare soil should be protected
with mulch and/or plaslic
covering, (42)
•If sown on subsoil, growth
may be poor unless heavily
fertilized and limed
Because over-fertilization
can cause pollution of
stormwater runoff, olher
practices such as mulching
alone may be more
appropriale. The poientiai
for over-fertilization is an
even worse problem in or
near aquatic systems. (42)
•Once seeded, areas cannot
be used for heavy traffic.
(42)
•May require regular
irrigation to flourish.
Regular irrigation is nol
encouraged because ofthe
expense and the potentiul for
erosion in areas that are nol
regularly inspected. The use
of low maintenance native
species should be
encouraged, and planting
should be timed to minimize
the need for irrigation. (42)
•This is a relatively
inexpensive form of
erosion control but should
only be used on sites
awaiting permanent
planting or grading. Those
sites should have
permanent measures used.
(42)
•Vegeiation will not only
prevent erosion from
occurring, bul will also trap
sedimenl in runoff from
olher parts of the site. (42)
•Temporary seeding offers
fairly rapid protection to
exposed areas. (42)
Mulching and Mailing - Application of
plant residues or other suitable materials
to the soil surface. This provides
immediate protection lo exposed soils
during the period of short construction
delays, or over winter months through the
application of plant residues, or other
suitable materials, to exposed soil areas.
Mulches also enhance plant establishment
by conserving moisture and moderating
soil temperatures. Mulch helps hold
fertilizer, seed, and topsoil in place in the
presence of wind, rain, and runoff and
maintains moisture near the soil surface.
(42)
•Care must be taken to
apply mulch at the specified
thickness, and on steep
slopes mulch must be
supplemented with netting.
(42)
•Thick mulches can reduce
the soil temperature,
delaying seed germination.
(42)
•Mulching offers instanl
protection to exposed areas.
(42)
•Mulches conserve
moisture and reduce the
need for irrigation. (42)
•Neither mulching nor
matting require removal;
seeds can grow through
them unlike plaslic
coverings. (42)
Plastic Covering - The covering with
plastic sheeting of bare areas, which need
immediate protection from erosion. This
provides immediate temporary erosion
protection to slopes and disturbed areas
that cannot be covered by mulching, in
particular during the specified seeding
periods. Plastic is also used to protecl
disturbed areas, which musl be covered
during short periods of inactivity to meet
November I lo March 31 cover
requirements. Because of many
disadvantages, plastic covering is the least
preferred covering BMP. (42)
•There can be problems
with vandals and
maintenance. (42)
•The sheeting will result in
rapid, 100 percent runoff,
which may cause serious
erosion problems and/or
flooding al the base of
slopes unless the runoff is
properly intercepted and
safely conveyed by a
collecting drain. This is
strictly a temporary
measure, so permanent
stabilization is still required.
•The plaslic may blow away
if it is nol adequately
overlapped and anchored,
(42)
•Ultraviolet light can cause
some types of plastic to
become briille and easily
lorn. (42)
•Plastic must be disposed of
al a landfill; it is not easily
degradable in the
environment. (42)
•Plastic covering is a good
method of protecting bare
areas, which need
immediate cover and for
winter plantings. (42)
•May be relatively quickly
and easily placed. (42)
Nationwide Examples of Source Control (Non-Structural) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Source Control (5) Benefit (5) Capital Cost (5) O&M Cost (5)
Minimizing Effects from Highway Deicing
Public Education (billing inserts, news
releases, radio announcements, school
programs)
/Can reduce improper disposal of paints and
chemicals.
.$200,000/yr(l992) $257,000/yr(1992)
Employee Training - leaches employees about
storm water management, potential sources of
contaminants, and BMPs. (43)
/low cosl and easy lo implement storm waler
managemenl BMPs. (43)
Litter Control /Reduce potential clogging.
/proper disposal of paper, plastic and glass.
.$20 per trash cans (1992) $l6/acre/yr(1992)
Recycling Program /reduction in potential clogging and harmful
discharge.
$200.000/yr $350,000 per 300,000
people
"No Littering" Ordinance /prevents litter from enter storm drain. $20,000 potential self
supporting
Identify and Prohibit Illegal or Illicit discharge
to Storm Drain
/halt hazardous and harmful discharge. $2/acre (assumes 1
sysiem monitored every
5 sq. miles)
$50/acre/yr (assumes
TV inspeclion)
Street Sweeping - Two types of streel
sweepers are available for removal of solids
from highway surfaces. The commonly used
design is a mechanical streel cleaner lhat
combines a rotating gutter broom with a large
cylindrical broom to carry the material onto a
conveyor belt and into a hopper.
The vacuum assisted sweepers, found lo
potentially remove more fine particles from
the impervious surface, are impracticable due
to iheir slow speed in highway maintenance
operations. (42)
/reduction in potential clogging slorm drain malerial.
/some oil and grease control.
N/A $0.83/acre/yr
Sidewalk Cleaning /reduction of material entering slorm drain. N/A $60/acre/yr
Clean and Maintain Slorm Drain Channels /prevent erosion in channel.
/improve capacity by removing sedimentation.
/remove debris toxic to wildlife.
N/A $21/acre/yr
Clean and Maintain Storm Inlet and Catch
Basins - Inlets, catch basins, und manholes are
to be periodically inspected and cleaned out
using a vacuum truck. (42)
/removes sedimentation,
/may prevent local flooding.
N/A $21/acre/yr
Snow and Ice Control Operations - Snow
control operations consist of removing
accumulated snow from the traveled
way, shoulders, widened areas and public
highway approaches within the right-of-way.
(42)
/removes snow/ice before it requires ice control
operations. (42)
Clean and Inspect Debris Basin /flood control.
/proper drainage and prevent flooding.
N/A $2 l/acre/yr
Table References
1. Camp Dresser & McKee, et al. 1993. Califonua Slorm Waler Besl Managemenl Handbook. Prepared for Storm
Waier Quality Task Force. 4-8:4-77,5-3:5-69.
2. Scheuler, Thomas R. 1987. Conirolling Urban Runoff: A Praclice Manual for Planning and Designing Urban
BMP's. Prepared for Washington Metropolitan Water Resources Board. 2.11:2.14, 5.1:7.25.
3. Pitt, R. et al. 'The Use of Special Inlet Devices, Filter Media, and Filter Fabrics for the Trealment of Storm
Water." 9pp.
4. Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates. 1996. Guidance for Moniloring ihe Effectiveness of Slorm Waler Trealment
Besl Management Practices. Prepared for the Bay Area Storm Water management Agencies Association. 5-6:5-
7.
5. JMM. 1992 A Study of Nationwide Costs to Implement Municipal Stonn Water Besl Management Practices.
Prepared for the Water Resources Committee American Public Works Association Southern Califomia Chapter.
4-3:4-14.
6. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Environmental management: A Guide for the Town Officials.
16,27.
7. Denver regional Council of Government. Nonpoint Source Demonstration Project. 7:14.
8. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. Urban Targeting and BMP Selection. 25:31.
9. Strecker. Eric W. 1993. Assessment of Stonn Drain Sources of Contaminants lo Santa Monica Bay. 21:28, 32.
10. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best management
practices. 7:13, 23:29, 55:69, 105:109.
11. Unocal. "More Down to Earth Talk from Unocal - Besl Management Practices."
12. The Fertilizer Institute. 1985. Symposium: "Plant Nutrients Use and the Environment."
13. The Fertilizer Institute. 1988. Best Managemenl Practices.
14. 1994. Repon of tbe Technical Advisory Committee for Plant Nutrient Management. 17:18.
15. Virginia State Water Control Board Planning Bulletin 321. 1979. Best Management Practices Handbook:
Urban. 111-1:111-9, 111-45:111-48,111-63:111-69,111-163:111-229.
16. California Department of Transportation Environnnental Program. 1997. Statewide Storm Water Management
/'/n/i. B-I4:B-53, C-l:C-22.
17. Caltrans Compost Slorm Water Filters (CFSs), Bonita Canyon & North Hollywood Maintenance Yard. 1998.
Table 9-15.
18. Minton, Gary R. "Storm Water Treatment by Media Filter." Dec. 11-12, 1997.
19. Ventura Countywide Storm Water Quality Management Program. "Draft Land Development Guidelines."
20. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coaslol Waters.
21. Caltrans. Storm Water Program. BMP Retrofit Pilot Studies, Technical Infonnation. 1999.
22. Caltrans. Compost Storm Water Filters (CSFs), Bonita Canyon Jc Nonh Hollywood Maintenance Yard
1997/1998 Wel Season, Post Sampling Summary Report. 1998.
23. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Infiltration Trench. EPA 832-F-99-019.
24. Flan, Daryl R. and Himat Solanki. "Removal Efficiencies of Stormwater Control Structures."
25. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Hydrodynamic Separators. EPA 832-F-99-017.
26. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Storm Water Wetlands. EPA 832-F-99-025.
27. Environmenlai Protection Agency. 1999. Wet Detention Ponds. EPA 832-F-99-048.
28. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Infiltralion Drainfields. EP.A 832-F-99-018.
29. Environmental Proiection Agency. 1999. Vegetated Swales. EPA 832-F-99-0O6.
30. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Sand Filters. EPA 832-F-99-007.
31. Environmenlai Protection Agency. 1999. Water Quality Inlets. EPA 832-F-99-029.
32. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Modular Treatment Systems. EPA 832-F-99-044.
33. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Bioretention. EPA 832-F-99-012.
34. Stenstrom, Michael K. and Sim-Lin Lau. "Oil and Grease Removal by Floating Sorbents in a CDS Device."
University of California, Los Angeles, 1998.
35. Stormceptor Performance Testing Results, http://www.stormceptor.conn/monitor.html
Westmount Shopping Centre and Conventry University Testing Results.
36. Caltrans. Highway Design Manual. Chapter 890 ~ Storm Water Managemenl. Table 892.3.1999.
37. Allen, Vaikko P. Results from the Vortechs Stormwater Trealment Sysiem Moniloring Program at Del-Orme
Publishing Company, Yarmouth, Maine. 1998.
38. Environmental Protection Agency and American Society of Civil Engineers. National Stormwater Best
Managemenl Practices (BMP) Database. Version 1.0, June 1999.
39. Lau, Sim-Lin and Michael K. Strenslrom. "Catch Basin Inserts lo Reduce Pollution from Stormwater."
Comprehensive Stormwater and Aquatic Ecosystem Managemenl Conference, Auckland, NZ, February 22-26,
1999.
40. Petro-Marine Co. Curb Inlet Drain Diaper Insert. Contact Ronald Isaacson. 28 Buckley Road, Marlboro, NJ
07746.
41. Best Management Technologies Brochure. Contacl Rod Butler. 23 Bal win Ave, Crockett, CA 94525.
42. Washington Slate Department of Transportation. Highway Runoff Manual. February 1995.
43. Environmenlai Protection Agency. 1999. Employee Training. EPA 832-F-99-010.
44. Caltrans. El Toro Detention Basin Storm Water Moniloring 1997/1998 Wet Season, Post Sampling Summary
Repon. 1998.
Caltrans - Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
Removal Efllcieney %
BMPType . Site
Localion
Approxiniate
Construction
Cost
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Design
Storm
(in.)
Design
Peak Flow
(els)
Wet
Season
Numher
of
SioriiLS
TSS Nilralc Nilritc Di.ssolvcd
Phosphorous
Total
Phosphorus
TKN Beneficial
Uses
Los Angeles Area
Bio Strip
- are broad surfaces
with a I'ull grass cover
that allows storm waler
to llow In a relatively
thin sheets.
Alladcna
Maint
Station
$218,000 1.7 1.0 1,2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RECl,
REC2
Infiltration Trench
-a trench is a depression
used to treat small
drainage areas by
lictaining slorm water
for shorl periods until il
percolates to thc
groundwater tahle.
Alladcna
Maint
Slalion
(buill w/ hio
strip)
1.7 1.0 1,2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RECl,
REC2
Dio Strip I-60.5/SR9I $193,000 0.5 1.0 0,1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RARE,
RECl,
REC2,
SPWN,
WILD,
GWR
Bio Swale
• are vegetated
conveyance channels
(typically trapezoidal
shaped) whecre storm
water llow passes
Ihrough thc grass al a
specilic depth.
I-60.5/SR9I (built w/ bio
sirip)
0.2 1.0 O.I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RARE,
RECl,
REC2,
SPWN.
WILD,
GWR
Bio Swale Cerritos
Maint
Station
$59,000 0.4 1,0 0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RARE,
RECl,
REC2,
SPWN,
WILD,
OWR
Caltrans - Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
Removal Efficiency %
BMPType Sile
Localion
Approximate
Consiruction
Cost
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Design
Slorm
(in.)
Design
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Wet
Season
Number
of
Storms
TSS Nilralc Nitrite Dissolved
Phosphorous
Total
Phosphorus
TKN Beneficial
Uses
Bio Swale I-.5/1-605 $97,000 0.7 1.0 0.3 N/A' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RARE,
RECl.
REC2,
SPWN,
WILD,
GWR
Bio Swale l-605/Dcl
Amo Ave
.$124,000 0.7 1.0 0.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RARE,
RECl.
REC2,
SPWN,
WILD.
GWR
Infiltralion Basin
• a basin is a depression
used to treat larger
drainage areas by
detaining storm waler
I'or shorl periods until il
percolates to the
groundwater lable.
I-605/SR9I $273,000 4.2 1,0 0.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RARE,
RECl,
REC2.
SPWN,
WILD,
GWR
Drain Inlet Insert
(slicam guard)(a)
• sock type inserts lhat
allow collecled waler to
filter through Ihe
geotextile fabric.
Las Flores
Maim
Station
$88,000 0.2 1.0 O.I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD
Drain Inlet Insert (fossil
niter)
- trough type inserts
llllcd with granular
amorphous alumina
silicate media.
Las Flores
Maim
Slalion
(buill w/ DM
(a))
0.8 1.0 0.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD
Drain Inlel Insert
(slream guard)(u)
Rosemead
Maim
Station
$65,000 0.3 1,0 0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD,
OWR.
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Caltrans - Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
Removal Elliciency %
BMP Type Site
Location
Approximale
Construciion
Cosl
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Design
Storm
(in.)
Design
Peak Flow
(ds)
Wet
Season
Number
of
Storms
TSS Nilralc Nitrile Dissolved
Phosphorous
Toial
Phosphorus
TKN Bcnehcial
Uses
Drain Inlet Insert (fossil
filler)
Rosemead
Muint
Station
(built w/ DM
(a))
1,2 1,0 0,5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD,
GWR,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Drain Inlel Insert
(stream guard)(a)
Foothill
Maint
Station
$68,000 0.2 1,0 0,0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD,
GWR.
MUN,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Drain Inlel Insert (fossil
niter)
Foothill
Maim
Station
(built w/DU
(a))
1.6 1.0 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD,
GWR,
MUN.
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Exiendcd Dcienlion
Basin^
- is a depression lined
with cither vegetated
soils or concrele.
I-.5/I-605
Inlerscclion
$142,000 6.8 1.0 5,3 1998-
1999
2 -89
lo
-71
•84 to
23
N/A N/A •84 to
•81
-83
10
-92
RARE,
RECl,
REC2,
SPWN,
WILD,
GWR
lixlcndcd DclcnlKiii
Basin^
l-(.0.5/SR9l
Intersection
.$1.17,000 0,8 1.0 1,2 1998-
1999
.1 •«()
III
•58
•54 to
2
N/A N/A 15 ll)
222
•8 lo
339
RARE.
RECl,
REC2,
SPWN,
WILD.
GWR
Caltrans - Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
Removal Efficiency %
BMPType Site
Location
Approximate
Construction
Cost
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Design
Storm
(in.)
Design
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Wei
Season
Numbcr
of
Slorms
TSS Nilralc Nitrile Dissolved
Phosphorous
Tolal
Phosphorus
TKN Bcncncial
Uses
Media Filter^
• designed removes nne
sediment and parliculale
pollulanis Ihrough Iwo
concrele lined vaulis
(sedimentation vault
and nitcring vault).
Three niler types 1)
Austin • open topped, 2)
Delaware • closed
lopped, 3) canister -
uses pearlite/zeolite
media.
Eastern
Reg, Maint
Sta
$341,000 1,5 1,0 1.9 1998-
1999
1 •34 112 N/A N/A 10 108 WILD,
GWR,
REC2,
WARM
Media Filler* Foothill
Maint
Slalion
$479,000 1,8 1,0 3.0 1998-
1999
2 -42
to
-34
285 10
289
N/A N/A -7 to
83
42 to
140
WILD,
CWR,
MUN,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Media Filler Terminatio
n Park &
Ride
$450,000 2,8 1,0 3.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RARE.
RECl,
REC2,
SPWN,
WILD,
GWR
Media Filter Paxton
Park &
Ride
$331,000 1,3 1.0 1.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A GWR.
REC2
r
Caltrans - Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
BMPType Site
Localion
Approximale
Conslruclion
Cost
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Design
Storm
(in.)
Design
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Wet
Season
Number
of
Slorms
Removal EITiciency %
TSS Nilrate Nilrile Dissolved
Phosphorous
Tolal
Phosphorus
TKN Beneficial
Uses
Mulli-Chamhered
Treatment Train
• Three chamber
mechanism 1) catch
basin, which functions
primarily as a screening
process, 2) settling
chamber, which
removes setlleable
solids wilh plale
separators and sorption
pads, 3) media filler,
which uses a
combinaiion of sorption
(Ihrough layers of sand
and peat covered by
niler material) and ion
exchange.
Via Verde
Park &
Ride
$375,000 l.l .0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD.
WET,
GWR.
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Multi-Chambered
Treatment Train
Metro
Maim
Station
$893,000 4,6 6,6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Multi-Chambered
Trealment Train
Lakewood
Park &
Ride
$456,000 1.9 1,0 2,8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
GWR,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
RARE,
RECl,
REC2,
SPWN,
WILD,
GWR
Caltrans - Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
Removal Elliciency %
BMPType Site
Localion
Approximate
Construction
Cost
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Design
Storm
(in.)
Design
Peak Flow
(ds)
Wcl
Season
Number
of
Slorms
TSS Nilralc Nilrile Dissolved
Phosphorous
Tolal
Phosphorus
TKN Bcncncial
Uses
Continuous Dellection
Separator
• a pre cast underground
unit placed downstream
of freeway drain inlets
to capture sediment and
debris, The unit creates
a vortex of water that
allows water to escape
thiough screens, while
contaminants are
dcMccled into a sump,
and later removed.
N2IO/Oicas
Ave
$62,000 l.l 1.0 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD,
GWR,
RECl,
REC2.
WARM
Cuiilinuous Dellection
Separator
1-
210/Filmor
eSl
$63,000 2.5 1.0 0.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WILD,
GWR,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Media Filler (compost)^ N.
Hollywood
Maim Sla
$40,000 3.0 0.7 1.0 1997^
1998
5 • 155 7 29 38" 28" 43
Media Filter (compost)'^ Bonita
Canyon
1.7 0.8 6.0 1997-
1998
5 72 •172 •233 -1633 •320 -133
Extended Detention
Busin '
El Toro 68 0.8 30.4 1997-
1998
5 88 15 61 22 57 40 RARE,
RECl.
REC2.
SPWN,
WILD,
OWR
San Diego Area
Caltrans - Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
Removal EITiciency %
BMPType Site •
Location
Approximale
Construction
Cost .
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Design
Slorm
(in,)
Design
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Wet
Season
Number
of
Slorms
TSS Nitrate Nitrile Dissolved
Phosphorous
Total
Phosphorus
TKN Beneficial
Uses
Extended Dcienlion
Busin
1-
5/Manchcsl
cr (easi)
$369,000 4.8 1,3 4.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RECl,
REC2,
BIOL,
EST,
WILD,
RARE,
MAR,
- MIGR
Extended Detention
Basin
l^.5/SR56 $166,000 5.3 1,3 5.7 1998^
1999
5 23
to
80
•100
to 64
-65 10
68
•84
10 43
BIOL,
- EST,
MAR,
MIGR,
RARE,
RECl,
REC2,
SHELL.
WILD
Extended Detention
Basin
1-I.5/SR78 $855,000 13.4 1.9 9.5 1998-
1999
4 45
to
72
-240
to ."58
-299 to -62 •IOI
to 19
AGR.
COLD.
MUN,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM,
WILD
Innitralion Busin l-.5/La
Cosla
(wesl)
$241,000 3,2 1,3 3.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BIOL,
EST,
MAR,
MIGR,
RARE.
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Caltrans - Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
Removal Efficiency
BMPType Sile
Location
Approximale
Conslruclion
Cost
Druinage
Area
(acres)
Design
Storm
(in.)
Design
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Wcl
Season
Number
of
Storms
TSS Nilralc Nilrile Dissolved
Phosphorous
Tolal
Phosphorus
TKN BcncllcKil
Uses
Wel Busin
- a basin consisting of u
permanent pool of wuter
surrounded by a variety
of wetland plant
species.
l-.5/La
Cosla (cast)
$694,000 4.2 1.3 2.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RECl,
REC2.
BIOL,
EST,
WILD,
RARE,
MAR,
MIGR
Media Filter
(pearolile/zeolite)
Kearny
Mcsu Muim
Stu
$340,000 1.5 0.9 2.7 1998-
1999
3 -27
10
20
5 U)
29
-115 to 46 5 to
32
REC2,
WARM,
WILD
Media Filter (sund lype
11)
Escondido
Maint
Station
$451,000 0.8 1.0 2,2 1998-
1999
3 0 to
66
1 1 10
70
-23 to 70 5610
84
MUN,
AOR,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
COLD,
WILD
Media Filter (sand type
1)
La Cosla
Park &
Ride
$242,000 2.8 0.9 2,3 1998-
1999
3 54
to
98
-98 to
4
-113 to 26 -28
lo 38
BIOL,
EST.
AMR,
MIGR,
RARE,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM
Media Filler (sand lype
1)
SR78/I-5
Park&
Ride
$231,000 0.8 1.0 2.7 1998-
1999
2 54 -313 •7 to 28 7 10
1 1
BIOL,
MAR,
RARE.
RECl,
REC2,
WARM,
WILD
Bio Swale SR78/Melr
ose Dr
$1.56,000 2.4 1.2 6.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AGR,
OMD,
RECl,
REC2,
WARM,
Wll,D
Caltrans • Best Management Practices Pilot Studies
Removal Eflicieney %
BMPType Site
Localion
Approximale
Conslruclion
Cosl
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Design
Slorm
(in,)
Design
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Wel
Seu,snii
Number
of
Slorms
TSS Nitrate Nilrile Dissolved
Phosphorous
Total
Phosphorus
TKN Beneficial
U.ses
Bio Swale l-5/Palomar
Airpori Rd
$142,000 2.3 N/A 3,8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RCC2,
WARM,
WILD
Bio Strip Carlsbad
Maint Stu
(west)
$196,000 0.7 N/A 1,3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A REC2,
WARM,
WILD
Innilralion Trench/Strip Carlsbad
Maint Stu
(casl)
(buill w/ bio
strip)
1,7 1,3 2,9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A REC2.
WARM,
WILD
Caltrans. BMP Retrofit Pilot Studies: Technical Information. 1999, This informaiion is preliminary and will be verified later.
• Caltrans, Compost Slonn Waler Fillers (CSFs), Bonita Canyon <S Norlh Hollywood Maintenance Yard, Slorm Waler Moniloring. 1998,'^ Caltrans, El Toro Dcienlion Basin.
Slorm Waler Moniloring. 1998.
•* Dissolved Phosphorus higher than Tolal Phosphorus concentrafions, due to results from slorm 4. Without slorm 4, efficiencies ure ^36% for dissolved phosphorus and 7%. for
total phosphorus.
N/A - Not Available at this time. * Preliminary Information.
APPENDIX 3
Mitigation Flowrate and Volume Calculation Tables
T:\Water Resoun:es\1325-Bressi\WaIer QualiIy\WQP_Plan-Clieclcl\1325WQ-cily0902.doc
TABLE 9. R EQUIRED M TIGATION FLOWRATE AND VOLUME CALCULAT ONS
Location AREA (Ac) Planning Areas C Qm (cfs) Vm (ft^) Vm (cy) CDS Device No. CDS Cost
A 155.0 PAS, 7-9,12-14, 15b 0.65 20.2 337590 12503 PSW 70 70 $84,000
B 4.5 PAIId 0.55 0.5 9801 363 PMSU20 15 $10,300
C 4.5 PAIIc 0.55 0.5 9801 363 PMSU20 15 $10,300
D 12.0 PAIIb 0.55 1.3 26136 968 PMSU 20 25 $17,500
E 5.2 PA11a 0.55 0.6 11326 419 PMSU20 15 $10,300
F 148.0 PA3b, 4, 6, 10, 15a 0.80 23.7 322344 11939 PSW 70 70 $84,000
F-1 75.0 PA3b, 4, 2b, road 0.95 14.3 163350 6050 PSWC 56 68 $67,000
G 60.0 PA 6, 10, 15a 0.55 6.6 130680 4840 PSW 50_42 $45,000
G-1 24.5 PA-10 0.55 2.7 53361 1976 PMSU 30 28 $21,800
G-2 34.3 PA-6 0.55 3.8 74705 2767 PMSU 40 40 $36,000
H 2.3 PAI 0.95 0.4 5009 186 PMSU 20 15 $10,300
1 22.0 PAI, PA2 0.95 4.2 47916 1775 PMSU 40 40 $36,000
1-1 8.6 PA2a 0.95 1.6 18731 694 PMSU 30 28 $21,800
1-2 8.5 PA2b 0.95 1.6 18513 686 PMSU 30 28 $21,800
J 14.0 PA3a, road 0.95 2.7 30492 1129 PMSU 30 28 $21,800
K-1 15.0 PA3b 0.95 2.9 32670 1210 PMSU 30 28 $21,800
K-2 11.9 PA3b 0.95 2.3 25918 960 PMSU 30 28 $21,800
K-3 75.0 PA3b, PA4 0.95 14.3 163350 6050 PMSU 56-53 $55,000
K-4 5.2 PA2b 0.95 1.0 11326 419 PMSU 20 20 $12,500
L 40.0 PA4, road 0.95 7.6 87120 3227 PSW 50 42 $45,000
L-1 20.8 PA4a 0.95 4.0 45302 1678 PMSU 40 40 $36,000
L-2 17.7 PA4b 0.95 3.4 38551 1428 PMSU 40 40 $36,000
M 29.0 PA5 0.95 5.5 63162 2339 PMSU 40 40 $36,000
M-1 15.5 PA5a 0.95 2.9 33759 1250 PMSU 30 28 $21,800
M-2 10.6 PA5b 0.95 2.0 23087 855 PMSU 30 28 $21,800
N 10.1 PAI 4 0.70 1.4 21998 815 PMSU 20_25 $17,500
0 13.0 PAI 3 0.55 1.4 28314 1049 PMSU 20_25 $17,500
P 83.0 PA7, 8, 9 0.55 9.1 180774 6695 PSW 50 50 $48,000
Q 12.5 PAI 2b 0.55 1.4 27225 1008 PMSU 20 25 $17,500
1. Qm = A X C X I = Peak discharge to be mitigated (A:
2. Vm = 0.6in x A = Volume of runoff to be mitigated
:Non-open space area, C=runoff coefficient, I = 0.2 in/hr)
COSTSUMMARY
Combined Industrial and Residentia!
CDS Unit Installation Maintenance
Option Location Size Cost Cost
1 A PSW 70_70 $84,000 $2,000
Q PMSU 20_25 $17,500 $1,000
B-E PI^SU20_15 $48,400 $4,000
F PSW 70_70 $84,000 $2,000
1 PMSU 40_40 $36,000 $1,000
J PMSU 30_28 $21,800 $1,000
Q PMSU 20_25 $17,500 $1,000
TOTAL $309,200 $12,000 $321,2001
4. SOURCE CONTROL BMPs
INTRODUCTION
•S This chapter
describes specific
source control
Management
Practices for use by municipalities to reduce
pollutants in its storm water discharges.
Chapter 2 provided a comprehensive review of a
municipal Storm Water Management Program
while Chapter 3 led you through the steps of
identifying BMPs that become a part of the
SWMP. Fact sheets are provided for each of
the BMP categories shown in the box.
Each fact sheet contains a cover sheet with:
• A description of the BMP
• Approach
• Requirements
- Cost considerations
- Regulations
- Administrative and Staffing
- Equipment
- Training
• Public Education/Participation
• Limitations
The side bar presents information on where this
BMP applies, targeted constituents, and an
indication of the level of effort and costs to
implement
For some BMPs, further information, including
examples of effective programs and references,
is provided in additional sheets.
Source Control BMPs
Pubiic Education
SCO Public Education/Participation
Planning Management
SCI Land Use Planning/Management
Material Use Controis
SCIO Housekeeping Practices
sen Safer Aljemative Products
Material Exposure Controls
SC20 Material Storage Control
SC21 Vehicle Use Reduction
Material Disposal and Recycling
SC30 Stonn Drain System Signs
SC31 Household Hazardous Waste
Collection
SC32 Used Oil Recycling
Spfll Prevention and Cleanup
SC40 Vehicle Leak and SpiD Control
SC41 Aboveground Tank Leak and Spill
Control
DIegal Dumping Controls
SC50 Illegal Dumping Control
Illicit Connection Controls
SC60 Illicit Connection-Pievention
SC61 Illicit Connection-Detection and
Removal
SC62 Leaking Sanitary Sewer Control
Street/Storm Drain Maintenance
SC70 Street Qeaning
SC71 Catch Basin Cleaning
SC72 Vegetation Controls
SC73 Stonn Drain Flushing
Roadway/Bridge Maintenance
E>etention/Infiltration Device
Maintenance
Storm Channel/Creek Maintenance
SC74
SC75
SC76
Manicipal Handbook 4-1 March, 1993
BMP: PUBUC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION
YDU CAN PREVENT
Vf&TER POLLUTION
Graphic: North Central
Texas COQ. 1993
Program Elements
Mew Development
^Residentiary
Commercia/ Activities
Industrial Activities
Municipal Facilities
C^Hhgal Dischw^^
DESCRIPTION
Public education/participation, like an oidinance oc a piece of equipment, is not so much a best management ptacuce as it
is a method by which to implement BMPs. This fart sheet highlights thc impwiance of integrating elements of pubhc
education and participation into a municipality's overaU plan for stonn water quality managemcnL Public education/
participation arc vital components of ntany of thc individual source control BMPs that follow in this chapter.
A public education and participation plan provides thc municipality with a strategy for educating its employees, the
puWic, and businesses about the importance of (ffotecting stonn water frcm improperly used, stored, and disposed of
poUutants. Municipal employees must bc trained, cspcdaUy those that woric in dqurtments not directly related to storm
water but whose actions affert stcmn waler. Residents must beaxne aware that a variety of hazaidous products are used
in tbe home and that their improper use and disposal can poUute stonn water. Increased puWic awareness also facUitates
pubUc scrutiny of industrial and municipal activities and wiU Ukely increase public reporting of incidents. Businesses,
particularly smaUer ones that may not be regulated by Federal, State, or local regulations, must be infonned of ways to
reduce their potential to pollute stonn water.
Ibe spedftc pubUc education^jarticipation aspects of each of thc source controls are highUghtcd in the individual fart
sheets. The focus of this fact sheet is mwe general, and includes the overaU objectives and approaches for assuring
puWic involvement in local stonn water management programs. Accordingly, tbe cwganization of this fact sheet differs
somewhat firom the other fart sheets in this chapter.
OBJECTIVES
The pubUc education and participation plan shoukl be based on four objectives:
• Promote a clear identification and understanding of the problem and the solutions,
• Identify req>onsible paities and efforts to date,
• PrtHnotc community ownership of the problems and the solutions, and
• Integrate public feedback into program implementation.
APPROACH ^ ^ ^ ^
. Patton a new program after the many estabUshed programs from municipaUtiesanjund die state and coun^^
Whenever possible, integrate stonn waler pabUc education/partic^ation into existing programs frtm oUier depart-
ments at your mumcq>aUty.
Best^
Management
PractlcesN
Municipal Handbook 4-2 Man*, 1993
BMP: PUBUC EDUCATlON/PARTICIPA-nON (COMTINUE)
Implement pubUc cducation^participation as a coordinated campaign in which each message is related to tlie iasL
Present a clear and consistent message and image to the pubUc regaiding how they contribute to storm water
poUution and what they can do to reduce it
Expand defmition of "public" to include small businesses and construction site operators who often possess the same
limited levels of awareness of tbe problems, regulations, and solutions as the "general" pubUc. As a result, smaU
btisinesses need the same level of technical assistance (education) and participation in tbe process as the "general"
pubUc.
Utilize multi-media to reach die fuU range of audiences.
Translate messages into tbe foreign languages of the coounimity to reach the fuU spectnun you' populace and to
avoid misinterpretation of messages.
Create an awareness and identification with the local watershed.
Invcdve focus or advisory groups in the development of a pubUc education/participation plan. This wUl create a
much more effective plan as weU as prcnnote ownership of tbe plan by those involved.
Use everyday language in all pubUc pieces. Use outside reviewers to highUght and reduce the use of technical
tenninology, acronyms, and jargoa
Make sure aU statements have a sound, up-to-date technical basis. Do not contribute to the spread of misinfonna-
tion.
Break up compUcated subjects into smaller more simple concepts. Present these concepts to tbe public in a metered
and organized way to avoid "overioading" and confusing the audience.
Manicipal Handbook 4 - 3 March, 1993
BMP: HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
i
55
OAU.
DESCRIPTION
PKHnote efficient and safe housekeepmg practices (storage, use, and deanup) when
handling potentiaUy hannful materials such as fertiUzers, pestiddes, cleaning solutions,
paint products, auttmiotivc products, and swimming pool chemicals. Related infonnation is
provided m BMPs SCI 1, Safer Altemative Products; SC31, Household Hazardous Waste
CoUection; SC32, Used OU RecycUng; and tiie SpUl Prevention and Cleanup BMPs
(SC4(VSC41). For information on specific activities at municipal fadUties, sec Ch^ter 4,
Industrial Handbook.
APPROACH
• Panem a new program after the many estabUshed programs frcxn munidpaUties around
the state and country. Integrate this best management practice as much as possible
with existing programs at your munidpality.
• This BMP has two key audiences, municipal employees and the general pubUc.
. Implement Uiis BMP in conjunction with SCI 1, Safer Alternative Produrts.
• FOT a quick reference on disposal alternatives for specific wastes, see Table 4.1, SC50,
DIegal Dumping ControL
REQUIREMENTS
Cost Considerations
The primary cost is for staff time as noted betow.
Regulations
- There are no rcgulatoiy requirements to this BMP. Existing regulations already
require municqalitics to jHOperiy store, use, and dispose of hazardous materials.
Administrative / Staffing
- Staff to train munidpal emptoyees and to coordinate pubUc education efforts.
Equipment
There are no majcH-equqanent requirements to this BMP.
Training
- Municipal cmirfoyecs who handle potentiaUy hannfijl materials shouW be trained
in good housekeeping practices. Personnd who use pestiddes must be ttained m
tiieir use. Thc CaUfonua Department of Pestidde Regulation Ucense pestidde
dealeis, certify pestidde i^Ucatois and condurt on-site inflections.
PUBUC EDUCATION / PARTICIPATION
• PubUc awareness is a key to this BMP.
LIMITATIONS
• n»ere are no major Umitations to tins best management practice.
Program Elements
New Development
C^^ReajdentiaTy
Commercial Activities
Industrial Activities
C^Municlpal FacllH^^
Illegal Discharges
Targeted Constituents
# Sediment
# Nutrients
O Heavy Metals
# Toxic Materials
O Float^le Materials
# Oxygen Demand-
ing Substancra
# Oil A Grease
O Bacteria t Viruses
W UMytoHsve SlgniOcmnt bnpmet
O Prot>^hLowor Unknown Impact
Implementation
Requirements
O Capital Costs
O OSM Costs
O Regulatory
Q Stamng
# Training
O Administrative
High O Low
SCIO
Best^
Management
PracticesN
Municipai Handbook 4-14 March, 1993
BMP: SAFER ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS
S E 3 m
SSL
Jfl •
il
S3 a
m
a
Program Elen>ents
New Development
C^sidentia[y
Commercial Activities
Industrial Activities
(^^Municipal Faciiit^^
Illegal Discharges
DESCRIPTION
Promote tiie use of less hannfiil products. Alternatives exist for most produrt classes
including fertiUzers, pesticides, deaning solutions, and automotive and paint products.
Related infonnation is provided in SCIO, Housekeeping Practices; SC31, Household
Hazardous Waste CoUection; SC32, Used Oil RecycUng; and the SpUl Prevention and
Cleanup BMPs (SC40/SC41). For infonnation on specific activities at municipal faciUties,
see Chapter 4. Industrial Handbook.
APPROACH
• Pattern a new program after the many established programs from mimidpaUties around
tbe state and cotmcy. Integrate this best management practice as mudi as possible
with existing programs at your municipaUty.
This BMP bas two key audiences, municipal employees and tbe general pubUc.
Implement tbis BMP in conjunction with SCIO. Housekeeping Practices.
For a quick reference on disposal alternatives for specific wastes, see Table 4.1, SC50,
DIegal Dtnnping Control.
REQUIREMENTS
Cost Considerations
The primaiy cost is for staff time as noted betow.
Regulations
This BMP bas no regulatory requirements. Existing regulations already require
munidpaUties to reduce tbe use of hazaidous materials. Safer altematives for use
by the general public arc presented through education ratiier tban reqiured by
regulation.
Administrative / Staffing
Staff to educate munidpal employees and to coonUnatt pubUc education efforts.
Equipment
There are no major equiimtent requirements to this BMP.
Training
Manicipal employees who handle potentiaUy harmfiil materials shoukl be trained
in the use of safer alternatives.
- Purchasing departments sboold be encouraged to iwocure less bazardoos materials.
PUBLIC EDUCATION / PARTICIPATION
Awareness is the key to tiiis BMP. It promotes a wiUingness to tty altematives and to
modify old behavion.
LIMITATIONS
Altemative products may not bc available, suitable, or effective in every case.
Targeted Constituents
9 Sediment
9 Nutrients
O Heavy Metals
9 Toxic Materials
O Floatable Materials
9 Oxygen Demand-
ing Substances
• Oil A Grease
O Bacteria tk Viruses
• UMvtoHmvm
SlgnlUeant Impaet
O ProbMmLewor Unknown Impaci
Implementation
Requirements
O Capital Costs
Q O&M Costs
O Regulatory
Q Staffing
# Training
O Adminiatrative
High O Low
SC11
Best^
Management
PractlcesN
Municipal Handbook 4-17 March, 1993
BMP: VEHICLE USE REDUCTION
JOIN A CAR POOL
AND
REDUCE POLLUTION
Texas CCX3.1993
Program Elements
.Jfew Developmei^
Residential
Commercial Activities
Industrial Acth/Hles
^^Wunicipal Facil'it^^
Illegal Discharges
DESCRIPTION
Reduce tiie discbarge of poUutants to stwm water from vehicle use by highUghting tiie
stonn water imparts, prcmoting tiie benefits to stonn water of altemative ttansportation.
and integrating initiatives witii existing or emerging regulations and programs.
APPROACH
Integrate diis best management iwactice as much as possible witii efforts being
devetoped and implemented by government agendes and businesses to reduce vehicle
use and improve air quaUty (e.g. County Congestion Management Agency). Integra-
tion wiU help avoid redundant and/or confUrting programs and be more effective and
effident.
EstabUsh trip reduction programs at nuyor en^toyers (government, large Ixisinesses).
REQUIREIVIENTS
• Cost Considerations
Thc primary cost is for staff time as noted betow.
• Regulations
Support efforts to pass reasonable regulattons at the State and local level (General
Plans, land use pbms, and zoning onlinances) anned at reducing veMcle use and
devek^ing transit-oriented communities.
Suppon devdopment of regional governing bodies to address tiie issue in a
cominehensive way (multi-media, watershed-based approach).
• Administtative / Staffing
- Requires at least one staff person to ttack, review, and comment ooemergmg
legislation and programs.
• Equipment
There are no major equqnnent requirements for this BMP.
• Training
There are no training requirements for this BMP.,^
PUBLIC EDUCATION / PARTICIPATION
Make tiie association in tiie pubUc's mind that air poUution = water pdlution.
Educate the puWic and munidpal enqiloyees about the water quaUty benefits of
reduced vehicle use.
He^ coordisate pubUc partidpation in ride sharing programs.
LIMITATIONS . ^ ^ „
"Turf batfles" may Umit tiie level of cooperation and mtegradon between departments
MIKI programs. ,
The use of ahemative ttansportation is highly dependent on its convenience and
relative cost
Targeted Constituents
O Sedirnent
O Nutrients
# Heavy Metals
# ToxicMaterials
O FhattJjIe Materials
O Oxygen Demand-
ing Sulfstances
# OII A Grease
O Bacteria A Viruses
# UMytoHsve SIgnlfleant hnpaet
O Prob^leljowor
Unknown Impact
Implementation
Requirements
O Coital Costs
O OAM Costs
Q Regulatory
O StafHng
Q Training
Q Admlnistrathrm
High O Low
SC21
Best^
Management
PracticesN
Municipal Handbook 4-21 March, 1993
BMP: STORM DRAIN SYSTEM SIGNS
Program Eterrvonts
JJ^w D«ve/opm«nf^
RaakSential
"J^ommorciml AcHvitics^^
Tndustria/ Activities
Jfunicipml FacilH^^
(Jt^ml Diachm^^y
DESCRIPTION
Stenciling of the stotm drain system (inlets, caidi basins, channels, and creeks) with
prohibitive language/graphic icoos discourages thc illegal dumping of unwarned materials.
APPROACH
Create a volunteer woric force to stencil stonn drain inlets, and use mumapal staff to
eim signs near drainage chaimcb and creeks.
For a quick reference oo disposal alternatives for specific wastes, sec Tabic 4.1. SC50,
nicgal Dumping Cootrol.
REQUIREMENTS
Cost Coosidcratioos
Volunteer work force serves to lower program cost.
Stenciling kits require procurement of durable/disposable items.
- Need foe storagc/mainlcnancc of stenciling kits requires planning.
Program can aid in thc cataloging of the storm drain system.
Regulations
- IJevclop and enftxcc airordinanorthat requires inlets, catch basins, channels, and
creeks to bc fitted with anti-dumping, poUutioo prcventioo signs.
Administrative/S tafDng
Primary staff demand is for program setup to provide marketing and training.
Oogoing/foUow-up staff time is minimal because of volunteer services.
. Minimum 2 perroiis are required for toghtraffK arras, cooimicrcial and industrial
zoocs.
Staff requirement at program headquarters for emergcndcs, qucstioos, etc.
Equipment
- Stotm drain stenciling kits.
Training
- Training sessioos of approximately 10-15 minutes will cover stenciling proce-
dures, including how to stencil, record keeping, problem drain notation, etc.
Proper bcalUi and safety protocol (buddy system, traffic, hcaldi concerns, etc.).
PUBLIC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION
Promote volunteer services (individual and business) through radio/television and mail
out campaigns.
Public reporting of improper waste disposal by a HOTLINE numbcr steodkd onto thc
stonn drain inleL
Targeted Constituents
# Seditnent
O Nutrients
O HekvyUetals
O Toxic Uatarials
O Fhattbh Materials
O Oxygen Demand-
ing Subatanoss
O Oil t Grease
O Bacteria t Viruses
• UkalvtoHav*
SigniHamt Impact
O Pmb^h Low or
Unknown Impact
Imple (Tventation
Requirements
O Capital Costa
Q OtU Costs
O Regulatory
O Staffing
O Training
O Administrative
• High O Low
SC30
Best^
Management
PracticesN
Municipal Handl>ook 4-23 March, 1993
BMP: HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION
COLLECTION CENTER
flM.
Program Elements
jtey Development^
.Residential
Commercial Activities
Industrial ActhfHies
Municipal Facilities
Cjj^^l Discha^u^
DESCRIPTION . „ Household hazardous wastes (HHW) arc defined as waste materials WhKh are typicaUy
found in branes or simUar sources, which exhibit characteristics such as: conosivity.
ignitabUity, reactivity, and/or toxidty, or are Usted as hazardous materials by tbe EPA.
APPROACH
CoUection Metiiod Options
Permanent collection centers.
Periodic coUection centers.
MobUe collection centers.
Curbside collection.
Ccxnbination of above systems.
Frequency
- Depends on coUection program implemented (e.g., monthly, quarteriy, etc).
For a quick reference on disposal alternatives for spcafic wastes, sec Table 4.1. SC50,
DIegal DuDD^ing ControL
REQUIREMENTS
Cost Consklerations
- Botti coUection and diqxKal can be veiy expensive.
Trained operators requiied.
Laboratory and detectioD equqiment necessaiy.
- Extensive reconJkeqnng required induding dates, types, and quantities.
. Many OHnmunitics have defened HHW programs due 10 high cost
- Ultimate cost depends on type of program chosen and avaUable di^wsal costs.
Regulations , .
- Fcdaal Regulations (RCRA. SARA. CERCLA) and State regulattons regardmg
tbe diqx)sal of hazardous waste.
- Local ordinances to discourage inqiroper disposal.
- MunknpaUticsnxiaiied to have a HHW element witiim flieir integrated waste
management plan.
Adounistrative/S faffing
Minimum is 6 persons.
Targeted Constituents
O Sediment
O NutrienU
# Heavy Metals
# ToxicMaterials
O Floati^le Materials
O Oxygen Demand-
ing Substances
# Oil A Grease
O Bacteria A Viruses
# UlcatytoHsve Significant Impeet
O Probable Low or Unknown Impaet
Implementation
Requirements
O Capital Costa
O OAMCoata
O Regulatory
Q Staffing
Q Training
Q Admlnlatrathre
High O Low
SC31
Manicipal Handbook 4-28
Best^
Management
PractlcesN
March, 1993
BMP: HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION (Continue)
PUBLIC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION
Educate pubUc about hazaidous materials in ttie home and consequences of improper use and/or disposal.
Identify and promote use of non-hazardous alternatives.
Identify proper storage and disposal mettiods.
Promote HHW reuse and recycUng.
Pn»note partidpation m tocal HHW collertion programs.
Posters, handouts, and educational efforts aimed at local schools.
PubUc service announcements (PSAs) on tocal television, radio, and newsp^wis.
UtiUty biU inserts.
Video or sUde presentations at community organizations.
Speakers bureau made up of tocal environmental professionals and recycUng experts.
Emergencies related to HHW shoukl be reported to 911.
LIMITATIONS . ^ ,
• Limited to areas witti convenient access to hazantous waste disposal fadUties due to cost associated witti ttansport.
• Cost
• Significant UabUity issues invtdvcd witii ttie coUection, handling, and disposal of HHW.
Municipal Handbook 4-29 March, 1993
BMP: USED OIL RECYCUNG
rSfRECYCLf
OIL HERE 1-^
QrapWc: North Central Texas COG. 1993
Program Elements
New Development
C^^dentiaTy
Commercial Activities
Industrial Activities
Municipal Facilities
Cjihgal Dischat^M^
DESCRIPTION
Used oU recycUng is a responsibte alternative to improper disposal practices such as
dumping oU in ttic sanitary sewer or storm drain system, applying oU to roads for dust
conttol, pladng used oU and filters in tiie ttash for disposal to landfdl, or simply pouring
used oU on the ground.
APPROACH
• Set up a mimicipal coUection cenier funded by tbe dty.
• Conttart out ttie coUection and hauling of used dl to a jaivate baulcr/recycler.
• Utilize tbe automobile service mdustry for coUection of used oiL
• For a quick reference on disposal alternatives for specific wastes, see Table 4.1, SC50,
DIegal Dunging Control.
REQUIREMENTS
• Cost Considerations
A coUection faciUty or curtiside coUection may result in significant costs
Commercial locations (aulomobile service stations, quick oU change centers, ete.)
as coUection points eliminate hauling and recycUng costs for dty
Staffmg costs are minimal when using commeicial tocations as coUection points;
staffing costs are higher if dty performs coUection services.
• Regulations
CaUfonua OU RecycUng Enhancement Art requires ttie CaUfomia Integrated
Waste Manageinent Board to pay recycUng mcentive not tess tiian $.04/quart to
cwbside collertion programs and certified used oU coUection centers after April
1.1993.
- Comply witii aU^ipUcaWe State and Federal regulations regarding storage,
handling, and tranqiort of petroleum produrts.
- MunkqiaUties required to have a used oU recycUng dement wittuntticir inte-
grated waste management plan.
• Administrative/Staffing
- Staffing lequirements are minimal if coUection/iecycUng is conttacted out ttia
used oU hauler/recyder or required at commerdal tocations.
PUBLIC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION
. Create procedures for coUection such as; coUection locations and schedute, accqitable
cootainers, and maTifniim amomts accepted.
• Promote pubUc partidpation tiirough die use trfpostcis, handouts, brochures, and
annooncements in tiie print and broadcast media; provkte Ust of commercial recyclers.
• Devetop incentive programs for CMnmcrcial locations and used oil hauters/rccycters.
Targeted Constituents
O Sediment
O Nutrients
# Heavy Metals
O ToxicMaterials
O Fhat^le Materials
O Oxygen Demand-
ing Sut)atancea
# Oil A Grease
O Bacteria A Viruses
# UkatytoHave
SIgnlfieant Impact
O Ptott^hLowor Unknown Impact
implementation
Requirements
O Capital Costs
Q OAM Costs
O Regulatory
O Staffing
Q Training
O AdminiatraOve
High O Low
8032
Best^
Management
PracticesN
Munkipal Handbook 4-35 March, 1993
BMP: USED OIL RECYCLING (Continue)
LIMITATIONS
• AvailabiUty of reliaUe, Ucensed used oU haulers and recyclers.
Requires continuous pubUc education.
• Used oil/hazardous waste separation requirement under Federal law.
• Meeting zoning, &n, and health and safety laws associated with coUecting used oU.
Municipal Handbook 4-36 March, 1993
BMP: ILLEGAL DUMPING CONTROL
NO
llli^iPINI 7
Graphk:: h4orth Central Texas COG, 1983
Program Elements
New Development
Residential
Commercial Activities
Industrial Activities
Munhlpal Facilities
^Jjhgal Dischar^^y
DESCRIPTION
Inqilement measures to detect correct and enforce against iUegal dumping of pdlutants on
streets and into tbe storm drain system and creeks. The remedial focus of this best manage-
ment practice ontrasts with the preventative focus of the, Material Disposal and Recycling
BMPs (SC30-SC32) in ttiis cbapva. DIegal discbarges through physical connections are
addressed m BMPs SC60-SC62 (UUdt Connection Conttols).
APPROACH
PubUc awareness is the key to this BMP. Train munidpal employees and educate the
general pubUc to recognize and report iUegal dumping.
Deputize munidpal staff with the authority to write environmental tickets.
EstabUsh system for tracking inddents.
Use the qiadu reference on disposal alternatives at the end of this fact sheet (Table 4.1)
to train mimicipal employees and to educate busiaesses, contractors, and the general
pubUc in proper and consistent methods for disposaL
REQUIREMENTS
Cost Consklerations
The primaiy cost is for staff time as noted below. Tbe cost (tepends on how
aggressively a program is implemented.
Municqial cost fcR' containment and (U^iosal may be bome by the discharger.
Regulations
Munich codes shoukl indude sections prohibiting die (liscfaarge of sdl, debris,
refuse, hazardous wastes, and other poUutants into ttie stonn drain system.
Administrative / Staffing
Requires technical slaff to delect and investigate iUcgal dumping violations, and to
coordinate pubtic education.
Legal staff is required to puisue prosecution of significant cases.
Equipment
A database is usefiil for defining and tracking the magnitude of tbe problem.
Training
Training of ti-^'tminii staff in identifying and documenting iUegal dumping
inddents is required.
PUBUC EDUCATION / PARTICIPATION
Awareness of the issue acconqilishes two things. The receiver of the infonnation
understands the issue and tiierefore is unUkdy to cause a problem, i^us thdr aware-
ness often he^ deiert other violations.
LIMITATIONS
The eUmination of Ukgal dumping is dqicndent on tiie avaUabUity, convenience, and
cost of alternative means of disposaL
Targeted Constituents
# Sediment
O Nutrients
# Heavy Metals
# Toxk Materials
# Floatable nnaterials
% Oxygen Demand-
ing Substances
9 Oil A Grease
# Bacteria A Viruses
• UkstytoHmv SlgnlUeant Impact
O Prob^hLowor
Unknown Impaet
o
Q
O
9
Implementation
Requirements
Capital Costa
OAM Costs
Regulatory
Staffing
# Training
O Administrative
High O Low
SC50
Best^
Management
PracticesN
Munkipal Handbook 4-44 March, 1993
BMP: STREET CLEANING
DESCRIPTION
Reduce tiie discharges of poUutants to storm water from stteet surfaces by conducting stteet
cleaning on a regular basis.
APPROACH
Prioritize cleaning to use ttie most sophisticated sweepers, at tiie highest frequency, and
in areas witti tbe highest pollutant loading.
Resttirt Stteet parking prior to and during sweeping.
Increase sweeping frequency just before the rainy season.
Pn^ maintenance and operation of sweepers greatiy increases tiieir effidency.
Keep accurate operatton logs to ttadc program.
Reduce tiie number of parked vehicles using regulation.
REQUIREMENTS
Cost Considerations
A Stteet cleaning program requires a significant capital and O&M budget
Sweeper capital costs range fiom $65,000 to $ 120,000, witii a usefiil Ufe of about
4 years. A careful review of cleaning effidency should be performed before
increased cleaning is proposed.
Regulattons
- Densely populated areas or heavUy used Stteets may require paridng regulations to
dear streets fix cleaning.
Administtative / Staffmg
Sweeper c^ierators, maintenance, supervisory, and administtative personnel are
required.
- Traffic conttol officers may be required U) enforce paiking resttictions.
Skillful design (rf cleaning routes is required for program to be productive.
- Anangements must be made for disposal of coUected wastes.
Equipment
- Mechanical broom sweepeis. vacuum sweepers, combination sweepers, and Stteet
flushers.
Training
- OperaiOTs must be ttained m proper sweeper operatioa
PUBLIC EDUCATION / PARTICIPATION
. lbc general pubUc shoukl be educated about ttie need tt) obey paridng resttictions and
use Utter receptactes to reduce street Utter.
LIMITATIONS
. No cunentiy availabte conventional sweeper is effective at removing oti and grease.
. Mechanical sweepers are not effective at removing fmer sediments.
Program Elements
New Development
Residential
Commercial Activities
Industrial Activities
Targeted Constituents
9 Sediment
# Nutrients
# Heavy Metals
O ToxicMaterials
# Fhatable Materiala
# Oxygen Demand-
ing Substancaa
O Oil A Grease
O Bacteria A Viruses
# UkalytoHeva SlgnlUeant Impact
O Probable Low or
Unknown Impaet
lm|3lementatjon
Requirements
# Capital Costs
# OAM Costa
Q Regulatory
# StMng
Q Training
Q Administrative
High O Low
SC70
Best'
Management
PracticesN
Munkipal Handbook 4-64 March, 1993
BMP: CATCH BASIN CLEANING Program Elements
New Development
Residential
Commercial Activities
Industrial Activities
..Munkipal FaciHtieaJ^
t^^Jjkgal Discharg^^
DESCRIPTION
Maintain cateh basins and storm water inlets on a regular basis to remove poUutants, reduce
high pollutant concentrations during die first flush of stonns. prevent clogging of tiie
downstream conveyance system, and restore the catch basins' sedhnent trapping capadty.
A catch basin is distinguished from a storm water iniet by having at its base a sediment
sump designed to catch and retain sediments below die overflow point This fart sheet
focuses on the cleaning of accumulated sediments from catch basins.
APPROACH
• Aggressively enforce anti-Utteriog and iUegal dumping ordinances.
• Catch basins should be cleaned regulariy to reduce tbe possibiUty of sediment and
poUutant loading from the flushing cffert of stonn water inflow.
• Prioritize maintenance to clean catch basins and inlets in areas with the highest poUut-
ant loading.
• Keep accurate opeiation logs to track program.
REQUIREMENTS
• Cost Considerations
An aggressive catch basin cleaning program could require a significant capital and
O&M budget A carcfiil smdy of cleaning effectiveness should be undertaken
before increased cleaning is implemented.
• Regulations
There are no regulatory requirements for tins BMP. Munidpal codes should
include sections pn^biting the di^x>sal of soU. debris, refuse, hazardous waste,
and other poUutants into ttie stonn drain system, and prohilnting Uttering.
Administrative / Staffing
- Two-peison teams may be required to ciean cateh basins with vactor trucks.
Arrangements must be made for proper disposal of coUected wastes.
• Equipment
Except for smaU commuiuties with relatively few cateh basins ttiat may be cleaned
manuaUy, most munidpaUties wiU require mechanical deaners such as eductors.
vacuums, or budcet loadeis.
• Training
Crews must be trained in proper maintenance, including record keeping and
disposaL
PUBLIC EDUCATION / PARTICIPATION
Educate contractors (cement, masoniy, painting) and utility employees (telephone,
cabte, gas and electric) about proper waste (soUd and Uquid) disposal.
LIMITATIONS
There are no major limitations to this best management practice.
Targeted Constituents
0 Sediment
O Nutrients
9 Heavy Metals
O Toxk Materials
# Fhat^le Materiais
0 Oxygen Demand-
ing Substances
# Oil A Grease
O Bacteria A Viruses
# UkafytoHava
Significant Impact
O Prob^hLowor
Unknown Impaet
Implementation
Requirements
• Capital Costs
• OAM Costs
o Regulatory
• Staffing
Training
Administrative
High O Low
SC71
Best^
Management
PractlcesX
Munkipal Handbook 4-67 March, 1993
BMP: VEGETATION CONTROLS
Qraphte: l<k>rth Central Texas COG, 1993
Program Elements
C^New Developme^^
C^^identjaT^
Commercial Activities
dndustrial Acth/itiM^
(^Munkipal Faciliti^^
Illegal Dischsrges
DESCRIPTION
Vegetation control typicaUy involves a combination of chemical (heibidde) appUcation
and mechanical mettiods. Mechanical vegetation conttol methods are discussed herein,
vegetation conaol by beibicides are addressed in BMP SCIO of ttiis chapter. Mechanical
vegetation control includes leaving existing vegetation, cutting less fiequcntiy,
handcutting, planting low maintenance vegetation, coUecting and properly disposing of
clippings and cuttings, and educating employees and ttie pubUc.
APPROACH
• Areas of Concem
Steep slopes.
Vegetated drainage channels.
- Creeks.
Areas adjacent to cateh basins.
Detention/retention basins.
• Areas Exempt
Flat or relatively flat vegetated areas.
Areas not adjacent to drainage structures.
Areas screened from drainage stnictures by vegetatton.
REQUIREMENTS
• Cost Considerations
Possibte mincH- cost impact of upgrading ceitain mowing equipment for bagging.
- Possibte cost impact for additional laborers involved in hand cutting and picking
up cUppings.
• Regulations
Local munidpal anti-dumping ordinances.
• Administrative/Staffing -
- Possibte need for additional labor to hand cut and pick up cuppings from areas
wtiere mechanical cutting and coUection is not practicable.
Train landscape contractors and municipal employees re. vegetation conttols.
PUBLIC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION
• Promote volunteer servtoes to create Utter coUection groups (such as Adt^-a-Stteam).
• Educate publk regarding anti-dumping practices (fold into existing houseboU
hazardous waste program), and impart of eroston from new construction.
LIMITATIONS
• Does not address problems associated witti heibidde use.
Targeted Constituents
% Sediment
9 Nutrients
O Heavy Metals
O Toxk Materials
# Fhat^le Materials
9 Oxygen Demand-
ing Sulfstances
O Oil A Grease
O Bacteria A Viruses
# Ukely to Hava SIgnlfleant Impaet
O Prott^la Low or Unknown Impaet
Implementation
Requirements
O Capital Costs
O OAM Costs
O Regulatory
O Staffing
# Training
O Administrative
High O Low
SG72
Best'
Management
PracticesN
Munkipal Handbook 4 • 69 March, 1993
BMP: DETENTlONflNRLTRATlON DEVICE MAINTENANCE Program Elements
New Developnent
Residential
Commerciai Activities
Industrial Activities
a^unkipai Faciliti^^
Illegal Discharges
DESCRIPTION
Proper maintenance and siltation removal is requiied on both a routine and corrective basis
to promote effective storm water poUutant removal effidendes for wet/dry detention pond
and infUtration devices.
APPROACH
• Remove sUt after suffident accumulation.
• PeriodicaUy dean accumulated sediment and sUt out of pre-treatment inlets.
• InfUtration device silt removal should occur when ttie infUtration rate drops below 1/2
inch per hour.
• Removal of accumulated paper, trash, and debris should occur every six (6) monttis or
as needed to prevent clogging of control devices.
• Vegetati(}n growth should not be altowed to exceed 18 inches in hdght
• Mow the slopes periodicaUy and check for dogging, erosion and tree growth on tbe
cmtiankment
• Corrective maintenance may require more fiequent attention (as required).
REQUIREMENTS
• Cost Considerations
Frequent sediment removal can be labor intensive and costiy. However, property
designed ponds altow for easy removal of accumulated sediments at relatively
minor cost
Cost of waste material for n:ansport and di^xjsal.
• Administrative/Staffmg
Two-peisoo teams may be needed for routine sUt removal and excavation.
Program manager needed to track maintenance activities and provide fteld
assistance.
Staff team needed for coirective maintenance activities.
• Regulattons
Pennits may be reqiured by Coips or Engineeis. Fish & Wildlife or State Fish &
Game.
• Equipment
Vehicles, dump tracks, buUdozers, trackfaoes. excavattirs, mowers, weed trim-
meis, siddes, machetes, shovels, rakes, and personal protective equipment (PTC),
(goggles, dust masks, coveralls, boots, gloves).
• Training
Appropriate excavation and maintenance prtxxdines.
Pioper waste disposal procedures.
Targeted Constituents
% Sediment
O Nutrients
# Heavy Metals
O Toxic Materials
O- FkatMsle Materials
% Oxygen Demand-
ing Substances
O Oil A Grease
# Bacteria A Viruses
# UkatyioHava
SIgnlfleant hnpaet
O Prottabh Low or
Unknown Impaet
implementation
Requirements
Capital Coats
Q OAM Costs
O Regulatory
Q Staffing
O Training
O Adnunistrmtive
High O Low
SC75
Best'
Management
PracticesN
Munkipal Handbook 4-78 March, 1993
BMP: DETENTION/INFILTRATION DEVICE MAINTENANCE (Continue)
PUBLIC EDUCATION/PARTICIPATION
Create a pubUc education campaign to explain the function of wet/dry detention pond/inftltration devices and their
operational requirements for proper effectiveness
Encourage die public to report wet/dry detention pond/infilttation devices needing maintenance
LIMITATIONS
Wet detention pond dredging can produce slurried waste tiiat often exceeds ttie requirements of many landfills
Frequent sediment removal is labor and cost intensive
Munkipal Handbook 4-79 March, 1993
5. TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs
INTRODUCTION
This chapter
describes
specific
treatment
control Best
.Management Practices (BMPs) for removing
pollutants in sioim water from urbanized areas.
Each fact sheet contains a cover sheet wilh;
A description of the BMP
Suitable AppUcations
Selection Criteria
Limitations
Design and Sizing Considerations
Construction/Inspection Considerations
Maintenance Requirements
Cost Considerations
The side bar presents information on which
BMP considerations, targeted constituents, and
an indication of the level of effort and costs to
implement The remainder of the fart sheet
provides further information on some or all of
these topics, and provides references for
additional guidelines.
BMP fart sheets arc provided for each of the
following controls:
Treatment Control BMPs
TCI Infiltration
TC2 Wet Poods
TC3 Constructed Wetlands
TC4 Biofllters
TCS Extended Detention Basins
TC6 Media Filtratioo
TC7 Oil/Water Separators and Water
(Quality Inlets
TCS Multiple Systems
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
There axe
several general
principles that
are appUcable to
all treatment
control BMPs.
Priority should be given to source
control: Source control BMPs are
generally (but not always) less expensive
than treatment control BMPs. Also,
treatment control BMPs will not remove
all pollutants and their removal efficiency
is difficult to predirt given the limited
understanding of the relationship between
facility design criteria and performance.
Recognize the unique C^ifornia
climate: With few exceptions most
storra water treatment experience has been
in "wet" states where vegetation can bc
maintained without irrigation. In contrast,
California's climate is semi-arid with the
exception of thc north coast. The
treatment control BMPs that require
vegetative cover may not \x. practical for
many areas of Califomia unless irrigation
is provided. Also, design criteria have
emerged from research of fadUties located
in cUmates where the rainfall season is
coincident with thc growth of vegetation.
However, in California, tiic wet season
does not occur during the primary growth
scasoa Caution must bc used in using
design criteria that have been developed
elsewhere in thc natioa
Design Storm Sire: It is commonly
thought by those unfamiUar with urban
runoff quality management that design
storms for sizing water quality controls
should bc tiic same as those used for die
design of drainage facilities. This is not
true. Thc damage done to a receiving
water by tiie pollutant wash-off of a 25
year storm (commonly used to size a
drainage system) is inconsequential to the
Municipal Handbook 5 - I March. 1993
Additional Information — Media nitration
Catch Basin Oate
Sediment Trap
Filter Trays
Bypass Outflow
Source: McPherson (1992)
FIGURE 6D. CATCH BASIN FILTER
TC6
Municipal Handbook 5 - 56 Marth, 1993
BMP: OIUWATER SEPARATORS AND WATERQUALfTY INLETS
FLOW
Consicteratioris
Soils
Arrm Re<juirod^
Slope
Water AvailabiTttY
Aesthetics
Hydraulic Head
Environmental Side
Effects
DESCRIPTION
Oil/waier separators are designed to remove ooe specific group of contaminants: petroleum
compounds and grease. However, separators wiU also remove floatable debris and settle-
able solids. Two general types of oil^v^icr separators arc used: convendonal gravity
separator and lbc coalescing plate interceptor (CPD.
EXPERIENCE IN CALIFORNU
Oil/warcr separators are in use throughout Califomia at industrial sites. Oil/waier separa-
tors arc nsed at all bulk petroleum storage and refinery facilities. A few jurisdictioas
require new commercial developments to install separalors under certain situadons ttiat are
environmentally sensidve.
SELECnON CRTTERIA
Applicable to situations where the concentration of oU and grease related compounds will
be aboocmally high aixj source control cannot provide effective control. The general types
of businesses where diis situatioa is likely arc truck, car, and equipment maintenance arxl
washing businesses, as well as a business tbat performs maintenance on its own equipment
arxl vehicles. I*ublic facilities where separators may bc required include marine ports,
airfields, fleet vehicle maintenance and washing, facilities, and mass transit park-and-ridc
lots. Conventional separators arc capable of removing oil droplets with dlamcteis equal to
or greater lhan 150 microns. A CPI separator should be used if smaller droplets must bc
removed.
LIMTTATIONS
Little data on oil characteristics in storm water leads to considerable uixxnainty about
performance.
• Air quality permit (cooditional authorizatioa) pcrmit-by-rulc from DTSC may bc
required.
DESIGN AND SIZING CONSIDERATIONS
Sizing related to anticipaicd influent oil corxrentrauoo, water temperature and velocity,
and the eGHucnt goaL To rnamiain rcasooable separator size, it should bc designed to
bypass flows in excess of first flush.
CONSTRUCTION/INSPECTION CONSIDERATIONS
None identiiied.
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
Clean frequendy of accumulated oiL grease, and floating debris.
COST CONSIDERATIONS
Coalescing plaic material is cosdy but requires less space than thc cooventiooal
separator.
Targeted Constituents
O Sediment
Q Nutrients
O Heavy Uetals
O TOXK Uaterials
O Ftoatable Materials
O Oxygen Demand-
ing Sutistances
9 Oil A Grease
O Bacteria i Viruses
SIgnl/hant knpaet
O Proli^l* Low or
Unknown tmpmct
Implementation
Requirements
O Capital Costa
Q OtM Costa
O Maintenance
O Training
• High O Low
TC7
Best^
Management
PracticesN
Municipal Handlx>ok 5 - 59 March, 1993
APPENDIX 5
CDS UNIT INFORMATION
T:\Waier Resourccs\1325-Bressi\Water Quality\WQP_Plan-Chcckl\l325WQ-cily0902.cioc
CDS is the most effective system for the sustainable removal and
retention of suspended solids aeid floatables from storm watere
The Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) technology
utilizes a non-blocking, non-mechanical screening process
to remove pollutants from storm wiater flow and combined
sewer overflows (CSO). CDS units capture fine sands
and solids and are capable of removing more than 80%
of annual total suspended solids from storm water.
Additionally, CDS units remove 100% of floatables and
100% of all particles in the storm water which are equal
to or greater than one-half the size of the screen opening.
Studies show the units remove 93% of all particles which
are one-third the size of the screen opening, and 53% of
all particles one-fifth the size of the screen opening.
A conventional oil baffle within a CDS unit effectively
controls oil and grease in storm water. With the addition
of sorbents, the permanent capture efficiency of oil and
grease is increased to 80-90%. The combination of a
conventional oil baffle and particulate sorbents is a unique
feature of a CDS storm water treatment unit. Once
pollutants are captured in a CDS unit, they cannot escape.
The CDS technology has been proven by extensive
independent laboratory studies and hundreds of actual
installations in the United States and Australia. Copies of
these performance reports are available at our web site,
or by contacting our offices.
The CDS technology has achieved approval as a Best
Management Practice (BMP) by municipalities and state
DOTS throughout the United States. The USEPA lists CDS
as a structural BMP.
(T) Raw storm water enters the
CDS unit's diversion chamber
Standard CDS Unit Capacities and Physical Features
) A diversion weir guides the
flow into the unit's separation
chamber where a vortex is
formed.
(^The vortex spins all floatables
and most suspended solids to
the center of the separation
chamber.
separation screen will not
become blocked due to the
washing vortex, but it will allow
liquid to move through.
(5)The screened liquid which
passes through the process
quickly moves toward the
outlet.
Manutacture
IVlaterial Model
Designation
Approximate
Impervious Catchment
Area (Acres)
Treatment Capacity
Q water quality
Screen
Diameter/Heighl
(It)
Sump
Capacity
(yd3)
Depth Below
Pipe Invert
(II)
Foot Print
Diameter
(11)
Manutacture
IVlaterial Model
Designation
Approximate
Impervious Catchment
Area (Acres) CiS MGD
Screen
Diameter/Heighl
(It)
Sump
Capacity
(yd3)
Depth Below
Pipe Invert
(II)
Foot Print
Diameter
(11)
Precast Concrete
PMSU20J5 1-4 0.7 0.5 2.0/1.5 1.1 5.1 6.0
Precast Concrete
PMSU 20_20 2-6 1.1 0.7 2.0/2.0 1.1 5.7 6.0
Precast Concrete
PMSU 20_25 3-9 1.6 1.0 2.0/2.5 1.1 6.2 6.0
Precast Concrete
PSW & PMSU 30_28 6-17 3.0 1.9 3.0/2.8 1.4-2.1 6.9 6.0-6.5
Precast Concrete
PSWC & PMSU 40 40 12-33 6.0 3.9 4.0/4.0 1.9 9.7 8.3 Precast Concrete PSWC 56_40 & 50 40 & 50 50 18-61 9 & 11 5.8 & 7.1 5.6/4.0 & 5.0/5.0 1.9 9.7 9.5
Precast Concrete
PSWC 56_53 28-78 14 9 5.6/5.3 1.9 10.8 9.5
Precast Concrete
PSWC 56_58 38-106 19 12 5.6/6.8 1.9 12.5 9.5
Precast Concrete
PSWC 56_78 & PSW 70 70 50-144 25&26 16&17 5.6 / 7.8 & 7.0/7.0 1.9-3.9 13.5 9.5
Precast Concrete
PSW 100_60 60-167 30 19 10.0/6.0 6.9-14.1 12.0 17.5
Precast Concrete
PSW100_80 100-278 50 32 10.0/8.0 6.9-14.1 14.0 17.5
Precast Concrete
PSW 10OJ 00 128-356 54 41 10.0/10.0 6.9-14.1 16.0 17.5 Fitierglass Premanufactured fiberglass units are avaiiatilfi tn trsat •small finuu<; of 1 to 3 c s Cast-ln-Place
Concrele CDS cast-in-place reinforcetj concrete units can be cJesigned to treat flows up to 300 cfs
c§iWitlT^tSaffeCT
; / ^ oper ^iqii Srtffe^!^^
' cstprcri draiii;sy^tem;5;Byp^
flows wiil not wash out ahy of'
the captured pollutants.
The cleaned water then moves
freely to the receiving water.
(^The cleaned storm water moves out
of the separation chamber and into
the diversion chamber downstream
from the diversion weir.
7)The sump can be equipped with an optional
basket to facilitate emptying the unit, or simply
clean with a vactor or clam bucket.
(^Suspended solids gently settle into
a sump where they remain until they
are removed.
mmmm
CDS units are self-operating. They have no moving parts
and they are entirely gravity driven, requiring only the
hydraulic energy available within the storm vvater flow.
The screens and supporting hardware are stainless steel
and will resist corrosion.
CDS units have very large sump capacities relative
to their design flows, and only need to be cleaned out
with a standard vactor truck approximately one to four
times per year. This operation eliminates workers' exposure
to the materials captured in the units.
KEY FEATURES and BENEFITS
Uses
• Storm Water Treatment
• Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment
• Dry Weather Flow Diversion
Applications
• Capture and retention of suspended solids,
sand, floatables, oil and grease, and otfier
gross pollutants from:
• Commercial Service and Parking Areas
• Industrial Areas
• Public Property and Parkland
• Residential Streets and Private Property
• Pretreatment for:
• Wetlands, Ponds, and Swales
• Media and Sand Filters
• Oil/Water Separators
ElficlenI
• Highly effective (up to 90%) in capturing
and retaining sediment as small as one-
third the screen aperture.
• Captures and retains 100% of floatables
and all other material greater than the
screen aperture.
Cost-Effective
• CDS provides the lowest cost per CFS
(Cubic Feet per Second) processed when
compared to other structural BMPs.
Large Fiow Range
• From 0.7 to'300 CFS.
Non-Blocking and Non-Mechanical
• Standard CDS units have no moving parts.
They require no power or supporting
infrastructure, and they will nol clog.
Unobtrusive anil Easy to instail
• CDS units are compact and are installed
below ground, so space requirements are
modest. They are ideal for new construc-
tion as well as retrofit or redevelopment.
Low-Cost, Safe and Easy Poilutant Removal
• Maintenance is easy using standard vactor.
clam, or basket equipment which mini-
mizes maintenance personnel exposure
to hazardous material.
Improves Discharge Waler Quality
• Removes floatables and suspended solids
from storm water runoff.
• Removes free oil and grease with the use
of an oii baffle, and/or sorbenis.
CDS Unit Operation and Maintenance
Inspection of its structural integrity and its screen for damage.
Animal and vector controL
Periodic sediment removal to optimize peiformance.
Scheduled trash, debris and sediment removal to prevent obstruction.
Removal of graffiti.
Preventive maintenance of BMP equipment and structures.
Erosion and structural maintenance.
Inspection Frequencv
The facility will be inspected and inspection visits will be completely
documented:
• Once a month at a minimum.
• After every large storm (after every storm monitored or those storms with
more than 0.50 inch of precipitation.)
• On a weekly basis during extended periods of wet weather.
Aesthetic and Functional Maintenance
Aesthetic maintenance is important for public acceptance of storm water facilities.
Functional maintenance is important for performance and safety reasons.
Both forms of maintenance will be combined into an overall Storm Water
Management System Maintenance.
Aesthetic Maintenance
The following activities will be included in the aesthetic maintenance program:
Graffiti Removal. Graffiti will be removed in a timely manner to improve the
Appearance of a CDS and to discourage additional graffiti or other acts of
vandalism.
Functional maintenance has two components:
Preventive maintenance
Corrective maintenance
Preventive Maintenance
Preventive maintenance activities to be instituted at a CDS are:
• Trash and debris removal. Trash and debris accumulation, as part of the
operation and maintenance program at a CDS, will be monitor once a
month during dry and wet season and after every large storm event. Trash
and debris will be removed from the CDS unit annually (at end of wet
season), or when material is at 85% of CDS' sump capacity, or when the
floating debris is 12 inches deep, whichever occurs first.
T:\WolcrResourccsM325-Bressi\Waler Quality\WQP_Plan-Chcckl\1325WQ-cily0902.doc
• Sediment removal. Sediment accumulation, as part of the operation.
• Maintenance program at a CDS, will be monitored once a month during
the dry season, after every large storm (0.50 inch). Sediment will be
removed from the CDS annually (at end of wet season), or when material
is at 55% of CDS' sump capacity, or when the floating debris is 12 inches
deep, whichever occurs first. Characterization and disposal of sediment
will comply with applicable local, county, state or federal requirements.
• Mechanical and electronic components. Regularly scheduled maintenance
will be performed on fences, gates, locks, and sampling and monitoring
equipment in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations.
Electronic and mechanical components will be operated during each
maintenance inspection to assure continued performance.
• Elimination of mosquito breeding habitats. The most effective mosquito
control program is one that eliminates potential breeding habitats.
Corrective Maintenance
Corrective maintenance is required on an emergency or non-routine basis to
correct problems and to restore the intended operation and safe function of a CDS.
Corrective maintenance activities include:
• Removal of debris and sediment. Sediment, debris, and trash, which
impede the hydraulic functioning of a CDS will be removed and properly
disposed. Temporary arrangements will be made for handling the
sediments until a permanent arrangement is made.
• Structural repairs. Once deemed necessary, repairs to structural
components of a CDS and its inlet and outlet structures will be done
within 30 working days. Qualified individuals (i.e., the manufacturer
representatives) will conduct repairs where structural damage has
occurred.
• Erosion repair. Where factors have created erosive conditions (i.e.,
pedestrian traffic, concentrated flow, etc.), corrective steps will be taken to
prevent loss of soil and any subsequent danger to the performance of a
CDS. There are a number of corrective actions than can be taken. These
include erosion control blankets, riprap, or reduced flow through the area.
Designers or contractors will be consulted to address erosion problems if
the solution is not evident.
• Fence repair. Repair of fences will be done within 30 days to maintain the
security of the site.
• Elimination of animal burrows. Animal burrows will be filled and steps
taken to remove the animals if burrowing problems continue to occur
(filling and compacting). If the problem persists, vector control specialists
will be consulted regarding removal steps. This consulting is necessary as
the threat of rabies in some areas may necessitate the animals being
destroyed rather than relocated. If the BMP performance is affected,
abatement will begin. Otherwise, abatement will be performed annually in
September.
TAWater Resourccs\I325-Bressi\Waler QuaJity\WQP_Plan-Chcckl\l325WQ-city0902.doc
• General facility maintenance. In addition to the above elements of
corrective maintenance, general corrective maintenance will address the
overall facility and its associated components. If corrective maintenance is
being done to one component, other components will be inspected to see if
maintenance is needed.
Maintenance Frequencv
The maintenance indicator document, included herein, hsts the schedule of
maintenance activities to be implemented at a CDS.
Debris and Sediment Disposal
Waste generated at a CDS is ultimately the responsibihty of the HOA. Disposal of
sediment, debris, and trash will comply with applicable local, county, state, and
federal waste control programs.
Hazardous Waste
Suspected hazardous wastes will be analyzed to determine disposal options.
Hazardous wastes generated onsite will be handled and disposed of according to
applicable local, state, and federal regulations. A solid or liquid waste is
considered a hazardous waste if it exceeds the criteria hst in the CCR, Title 22,
Article 11.
T:\Waler Resources\1325-Bressi\Watcr Quality\WQP_Plan-Chcckl\1323WQ-city0902.doc