February 1, 2012
Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: MRP Provision C.10.a(ii) Reports Transmittal
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
This letter and two attachments are submitted on behalf of all 76 permittees subject to
the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)
(NPDES Permit No. CAS612008) in compliance with MRP Provision C.10.a(ii) -
Baseline Trash Load and Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method.
Provision C.10.a(ii) requires in part that each Permittee, “working collaboratively or
individually, shall determine the baseline trash load from its MS4 to establish the
basis for trash load reductions and submit the determined load level to the Water
Board by February 1, 2012, along with documentation of methodology used to
determine the load level. The submittal shall also include a description of the trash
load reduction tracking method that will be used to account for trash load reduction
actions and to demonstrate progress and attainment of trash load reduction levels.”
We expect MRP Permittees will be using baseline trash generation rates and load
reduction tracking methods developed collaboratively through BASMAA. These
rates and methods are presented in the attached reports and were created under the
oversight of the BASMAA Trash Committee in coordination with Permittees. The
BASMAA Trash Committee serves under the oversight of the BASMAA Board of
Directors and has active participation of staff from Permittees and Stormwater
Programs.
The Permittees have worked diligently since the MRP was adopted in October 2009
to develop this information. The work has been carried out collaboratively among
the Permittees and in cooperation with your staff. We thank your staff for their
helpful and attentive participation in the BASMAA Trash Committee and other
discussions leading to this submittal.
We certify under penalty of law that this document was prepared under our direction
or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on our
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of
our knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. We are aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
MRP Provision C.10.a(ii) Reports Transmittal
James Scanlin, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
Tom Dalziel, Contra Costa Clean Water Program
Kevin Cullen, Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program
Matt Fabry, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
Adam Olivieri, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
Lance Barnett, Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District
Attachments: Preliminary Baseline Trash Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s
– Technical Memorandum (February 1, 2012)
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method – Technical Report (version 1.0)
(February 1, 2012)
cc: Tom Mumley, Regional Water Board
Dale Bowyer, Regional Water Board
BASMAA Board of Directors
Chris Sommers, BASMAA Trash Committee
February 1, 2012 2
Preliminary Baseline Trash
Generation Rates for San Francisco
Bay Area MS4s
Technical Memorandum
Submitted in Compliance with Provision C.10.a(ii) of Order R2‐2009‐0074
Prepared for:
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA)
Prepared by:
EOA, Inc.
1410 Jackson Street
Oakland, CA 94612
February 1, 2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. III
.
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................... IV
.
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. REGULATORY BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................
1
1.2. SUMMARY OF TRASH BASELINE GENERATION RATES PROJECT .................................................................................... 1
1.3. TRASH BASELINE LOADS CONCEPTUAL MODEL ........................................................................................................ 2
2.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 MONITORING DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................
3
2.1.1. Monitoring Strata ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.2. Monitoring Sites .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.3. Trash Full Capture Devices .................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.4. Monitoring Site Loading Areas ............................................................................................................ 7
2.1.5. Tracking of Important Factors ............................................................................................................. 7
2.2. MONITORING AND CHARACTERIZATION EVENTS ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1. Trash Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.2. Trash Characterization ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.3. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 9
3.0 MONITORING AND CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS .................................................................................... 0
. 1
3.1. MATERIAL COMPOSITION AND TRASH TYPES ........................................................................................................ 0 1
3.1.1. Monitoring Event #1 .......................................................................................................................... 0
1
3.1.2. Monitoring Event #2 .......................................................................................................................... 0
1
3.2. CALCULATION OF GENERATION RATES ................................................................................................................. 1
1
3.2.1. Individual Site Generation Rate Calculations .................................................................................... 1 1
3.2.2. Comparison to Explanatory Factors .................................................................................................. 3 1
3.2.3. Baseline Generation Rates ................................................................................................................ 4 1
4.0 DEVELOPING TRASH BASELINE LOADING RATES AND LOADS .................................................................... 5 1
4.1. BASELINE TRASH LOADING EQUATION ................................................................................................................. 5
1
4.2. JURISDICTIONAL AND EFFECTIVE LOADING AREAS .................................................................................................. 6 1
4.3. ACCOUNTING FOR BASELINE CONTROL PROGRAMS ................................................................................................ 7 1
4.3.1. Baseline Street Sweeping .................................................................................................................. 7
1
4.3.2. Baseline Storm Drain Inlet Cleaning .................................................................................................. 8 1
4.3.3. Baseline Stormwater Pump Station Maintenance ............................................................................ 8 1
4.4. REPORTING OF TRASH BASELINE LOADS ............................................................................................................... 9
1
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 9
1
GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 0
2
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
2
APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................................................... 0
3
APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
3
ii
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Reclassified ABAG land use categories that were utilized during the project. ............................................. 4
Table 2.2. Baseline Trash Generation Rate Project monitoring site goals. ................................................................... 5
Table 4.1. Number of monitoring sites and percentages of trash in each land use
category. .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 4.2. Preliminary Trash Generation Rates by Land Use Category. ...................................................................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Conceptual model of trash baseline loads from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s) ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1. Monitoring sites included in the Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project. ............................................. 6
.
Figure 3.1. Trash types characterized in monitoring events 1 and 2 ....................................................................... 11
Figure 4.1. Street sweeping effectiveness curve based on level of parking enforcement and the ratio of
street sweeping frequency to storm frequency (adapted from Armitage 2001). ................................. 12
Figure 4.2. Comparison of generation rates by land use class .................................................................................. 14
Figure 5.1. Example of an effective trash loading area ............................................................................................. 17
Figure 5.2. Baseline ceilings for street sweeping frequencies in retail/wholesale and other land uses .................. 18
iii
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
BMP Best Management Practice
CRV California Redemption Value
DU Dwelling Unit
gal Gallon
GIS Geographic Information System
HDR High Density Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
mm millimeter
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
MS4s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWS National Weather Service
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
RPD Relative Percent Difference
SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollutant Prevention Program
SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
yr Year
iv
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Regulatory Background
The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit for Phase I communities in the San Francisco Bay
(Order R2‐2009‐0074), also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), became effective on
December 1, 2009. The MRP applies to 76 large, medium and small municipalities (cities, towns and
counties) and flood control agencies in the San Francisco Bay Region, collectively referred to as
Permittees. Provision C.10 of the MRP (Trash Load Reduction) requires Permittees to reduce trash from
their Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) by 40 percent before July 1, 2014.
Required submittals to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) by
February 1, 2012 under MRP provision C.10.a (Short Term Plan) include:
1. (a) A baseline trash1 load estimate and (b) description of the methodology used to
determine the load level; and
2. A description of the Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method that will be used to account
for trash load reduction actions and to demonstrate progress and attainment of trash
load reduction levels.
3. A Short‐Term Trash Loading Reduction Plan that describes control measures and best
management practices that will be implemented to attain a 40 percent trash load
reduction from its MS4 by July 1, 2014;
Short Term Trash Loading Reduction Plans (Short‐Term Plans) submitted by Permittees are intended to
comply with submittals #1(a) and #3 listed above. The BASMAA Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method
Technical Report was developed and submitted in compliance with submittal #2. This technical
memorandum describes the methodology used to develop trash baseline loads and the results of the
BASMAA Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project, which provided information needed to calculate
baseline loads. This Technical Memorandum is intended to comply with submittal #1(b) above required
by Provision C.10.a(ii) of the MRP.
1.2. Summary of Trash Baseline Generation Rates Project
To assess progress towards trash load reduction goals in the MRP, each Permittee is required to
determine the baseline trash load from its MS4. A baseline trash load must be submitted to the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) by February 1, 2012. Through the
approval of a regional project by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
(BASMAA), Permittees agreed to work collaboratively to develop a regionally consistent method to
establish baseline trash generation rates.
The purpose of the regional project described in this Technical Memorandum is to assist Permittees in
establishing a baseline for which to demonstrate progress towards MRP trash load reduction goals (i.e.,
40%, 70% and 100%). The Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project incorporates a technically‐sound
method for developing (default) baseline trash generation rates that can be adjusted based on
Permittee/site specific conditions and baseline control measure implementation to develop a baseline
trash load estimate.
1
Litter is all human‐made materials (as defined by California Code Section 68055.1g), excluding sediments, sand,
vegetation, oil and grease, and exotic species, that cannot pass through a 5 mm mesh screen.
1
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
The approach was intended to be cost‐effective and consistent, but still provide an adequate level of
confidence in estimating trash loads from MS4s, while acknowledging that uncertainty in trash loads still
exists. The collaborative project was managed through the BASMAA Trash Committee and included the
following steps:
1. Conduct literature review;
2. Develop conceptual model;
3. Develop and implement sampling and analysis plan;
4. Test conceptual model;
5. Develop default trash generation rates that may be adjusted by Permittees based on
baseline levels of control measure implementation to calculate trash baseline loading rates;
and,
6. Report trash baseline loads to the Water Board in Permittee Short‐Term Trash Load
Reduction Plans.
This Technical Memorandum documents the initial results of the collaborative project that is currently
underway and presents the most current understanding of stormwater trash generation in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Based on the results of additional trash characterization work planned in 2011‐12 as
part of the generation rates project, this Technical Memorandum will be superseded by a Technical
Report that more fully describes methods and includes all results from all data collected during the
project. The anticipated submittal date of the final Technical Report to the Water Board is September
15, 2012. Therefore, generation rates presented in this technical memorandum should be considered
preliminary and are subject to revision.
1.3. Trash Baseline Loads Conceptual Model
To assist Permittees in developing a baseline trash load estimation method, BASMAA (2011b) developed
a conceptual model of trash loading to MS4s. The conceptual model was built off of information derived
from a comprehensive review of available literature regarding baseline trash loads entering stormwater
conveyance systems from urban areas. Based on the conceptual model (and literature review), it is
apparent that baseline trash loads from MS4s in urbanized areas are dependent upon:
Trash Generation ‐ the volume of trash that is generated by (i.e., deposited onto the urban
landscape) in a specific geographical area; and,
Trash Interception – the volume of trash that is intercepted through control measures (e.g.,
street sweeping) prior to being discharged via MS4s.
The conceptual model shown in Figure 1.1 identifies eight factors, both anthropogenic and natural, that
are believed to be the most influential and governing of trash discharged from MS4s. This conceptual
model serves as the foundation for developing trash baseline load estimates from Bay Area MS4s.
2
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
Rainfall
Antecedent Dry Weather Days
Figure 1.1. Conceptual model of trash baseline loads from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
It is important to note that two important and distinct terms will be used throughout this report:
Baseline Generation Rate ‐ the rate at which trash is generated onto the urban watershed
under a “no interception” scenario (e.g., no street sweeping).
Baseline Loading Rate ‐ the rate at which trash is discharged from an MS4 under a “baseline”
control measure implementation scenario (e.g., baseline street sweeping).
The difference between generation rates and baseline loading rates is the amount of trash intercepted
by street sweeping, storm drain inlet maintenance, and stormwater pump station at baseline
implementation levels. This Technical Memorandum reports on Baseline Generation Rates developed
through the BASMAA Regional Project. These generation rates were used by Permittees to develop
baseline loading estimates required by the MRP and described in Permittee‐specific Short‐Term Trash
Load Reduction Plans.
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Monitoring Design
Sampling and analysis methods employed by BASMAA to develop trash generation rates are fully
described in BASMAA (2011b). Methods were followed to provide reasonable estimates of trash
generation rates from San Francisco Bay Area MS4s. Baseline generation rates are the rate at which
trash deposits onto the environment and provide the starting point for establishing baseline loads from
MS4s. Baseline trash generation rates should ideally be based on those factors that most influence and
govern trash generation. That said, not all factors that influence the amount of trash discharged from an
3
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
MS4 can be assessed, and therefore generation rates presented in this Technical Memorandum should
be considered preliminary first order estimates that have a moderate level of confidence.
2.1.1. Monitoring Strata
To test and adapt the conceptual model presented in Figure 1.1, 27 monitoring categories were
developed apriori based on combination of land use and economic profile (i.e., Household Median
Income) categories (Table 2.1). To the extent possible, land use categories were selected to closely
resemble those chosen by the County of Los Angeles for its Trash Baseline Monitoring Study conducted
in the Los Angeles River and Ballona Creek watersheds, and subsequently used for Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) development. That said, the BASMAA regional project provided a higher resolution for
some land use categories (e.g., retail/wholesale and industrial) compared to studies conducted in Los
Angeles County (Table 2.1). Furthermore, economic profiles and population densities were included in
the BASMAA project, but were not in County of Los Angeles studies.
Table 2.1. Reclassified ABAG land use categories that were utilized during the project.
Monitoring Category Category Description
Land Use
High Density Residential > 8 dwelling per acre
Low Density Residential 1 to 8 DUs per acre
Rural Residential >1 to 5 acre lots
Retail and Wholesale Retail and Wholesale (may include post offices and hotels)
Combines 30 ABAG land use categories that include local government,
Commercial and Services
education, research centers, offices, churches, hospitals, and military.
Combines 4 ABAG land use categories, including light and unspecified
Light and Other Industrial
industrial, warehousing and food processing
Activities are devoted to heavy fabrication, making and assembling parts
which are, in themselves, large and heavy, or to the processing of basic
Heavy Industrial
raw materials. Most industries in this category involve mechanical,
chemical or heat processing.
All leisure, ornamental, zoological and botanical parks. Cemeteries, golf
Urban Parks
courses, and regional parks are not included.
K‐12 Schools Elementary and secondary schools
Other All land use categories not included above
Economic Profile (Household Median Income)
High Income Annual household median income of greater than $100,000
Moderate Income Annual household median income between $50,000 and $100,000
Low Income Annual household median income less than $50,000
*DU = dwelling unit
Land use data were acquired from the 2005 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Geographic
Information System (GIS) land use layer for the Bay Area. Land uses depicted in the ABAG land use
datalayer were field verified for all monitoring sites. Major errors in land use classifications in ABAG
2005 were corrected from information gained through field visits and Permittee staff knowledge of the
sites.
4
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
Economic profile categories selected to test the importance of household incomes are presented in
Table 2.1. U.S. Census data were used to identify economic profiles and population densities within 2‐
acre buffer of each site monitored in this project. The most current Census was conducted in 2010, but
was unavailable for this analysis. Therefore, this project utilized the Census data from 2000.
2.1.2. Monitoring Sites
A total of 149 sites located in four Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa
Clara) were monitored during the project (Figure 2.1). Each site was a storm drain inlet that was
equipped with Water Board recognized trash full capture device.2 Attempts were made to spatially
balance sites throughout the Bay Area while maintaining a homogenous land use for each site and a
range economic profiles. The total number of sites included in the project and their associated land use
and economic profile category are presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Baseline Trash Generation Rate Project monitoring site categories.
Median Household Income
Land Use
Low ($100K)
High Density Residential 9 14 7
Low Density Residential 4 7 7
Rural Residential 0 0 1
Commercial and Services 5 5 2
Retail and Wholesale 25 22 12
Light Industrial 10
Heavy Industrial 5
Urban Parks 5
K‐12 Schools 9
Total # of Sites 149
Requirements for inclusion of a monitoring site in the project included the following:
A correctly installed, Permittee‐owned full‐capture device (as defined by the MRP);
Known installation and past maintenance dates;
Willingness of the Permittee to cleanout and transport material from the site to a central
characterization site when indicated by the Project Manager;
Homogenous land use within and directly outside of the site drainage area; and,
Limited to no contribution of trash to the site that originates from areas outside of a Permittee’s
jurisdiction (e.g., no trash from State or Federally owned freeways or highways).
2
A device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design capacity of
not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one‐year, one‐hour, storm in the sub‐drainage area.
5
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
Figure 2.1. Monitoring sites included in the Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project.
2.1.3. Trash Full Capture Devices
To effectively capture trash at each monitoring site, storm drains were equipped with storm drain
inserts recognized by the Water Board as full capture devices. All full capture devices installed at
monitoring sites were 5mm screen‐type devices installed in storm drain inlets. Specific types of storm
drain inlet screens installed included:
Stormtek™ Catchbasin Connector Pipe Screens (Advanced Solutions, Inc.)
Connector Pipe Screens (West Coast Storm, Inc.)
Triton Bioflex Drop Inlet Trash Guard (Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc.)
6
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
2.1.4. Monitoring Site Loading Areas
For each monitoring site, the geographical area that contributes trash to each storm drain inlet was
delineated using a standardized method. First, experienced field survey staff reviewed available site
drainage maps and conducted field visits to each monitoring site. Hydrological drainage areas were
delineated based on topography and the storm drainage system flow directions using the best available
information. Once developed, hydrologic drainage areas were adjusted to conform with effective trash
loading area definitions described in Section 5.2. Adjustments were made to provide consistency
between trash baseline loading estimates and the maximum geographical extent of control measure
implementation.
2.1.5. Tracking of Important Factors
Accumulation Periods
Trash accumulation periods for each sampling event were defined for each monitoring site.
Accumulation periods were defined as the number of days between the previous cleanout (or
installation) date and the monitoring (cleanout) date. Installation and cleanout dates were provided by
Permittees or third party contractors responsible for installation and/or cleanout of devices.
Accumulation periods for each site and sampling event combination are included in Appendix C.
Rainfall and Antecedent Dry Weather Days
Data from rainfall gages located in as close proximity to each monitoring site as possible were identified.
As a result, there were a variety of sources that provided precipitation data for this project. Flood
control districts in Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties and the National Weather Service
(NWS) provided precipitation data, in addition to rainfall data collected at regional airports. Rainfall
totals for 24‐hour periods and rainfall intensity3, as well as antecedent dry weather days4 were
determined from these records for each site during each accumulation period.
Street Sweeping Frequency and Parking Enforcement Data
For each monitoring site, street sweeping frequency and parking enforcement data were obtained
through a combination of municipal staff queries, observations of signs posted at sites, and municipality
websites. Parking enforcement, or the equivalent, was defined as the ability of a street sweeper to
sweep to the curb. Measures that constituted parking enforcement or equivalent included the
following:
Posted signs restricting parking during sweeping times;
Parking enforcement and citations by local law enforcement;
Sweeping prior to the arrival of cars on the street;
Absence of parking on the street; and
Available, but unused street parking due to alternate and/or preferred parking areas (e.g.,
driveways and garages in residential areas).
3
Greatest rainfall intensity in a 24 hour period
4
Days with less than 0.2 inches per day
7
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
2.2. Monitoring and Characterization Events
2.2.1. Trash Monitoring
Three monitoring (cleanout) events were scheduled as part of this BASMAA Regional Project. The first
two are pertinent to this Technical Memorandum.
To ensure monitoring occurred during similar timeframes, the project manager scheduled cleanout
events for all sites during the same week. Exact cleanout dates were provided by municipal staff, or third
party contractors responsible for cleaning of the devices. Permittees were responsible for cleaning of
sites and transporting all material to the centralized characterization location during the project. For all
sites, trash and debris (e.g., dirt, leaves, rocks, bugs, etc.) were removed and placed in large, plastic
garbage bags and transported to the central characterization site located at the City of San Jose’s
Mabury Corporation Yard.
The first monitoring event was timed to encompass the 2010‐2011 wet weather season (November
through April). A total of 71 monitoring sites were cleaned between May 16‐18, 2011 for this event. The
trash accumulation period for the first event ranged between 66 to 257 days for each site. During these
site accumulation periods, between 3 and 14 inches of rainfall was observed at gages. The number of
wet weather days5 during these accumulation periods was between 5 and 22 days, depending on the
site.
The second monitoring event was conducted between September 8 and 15, 2011 and designed to depict
trash generation during the dry weather season (May through October). In addition to sites monitored
during the first event, several additional sites were included in the second event, bringing the total
number of sites to 149. Again, the trash and debris captured by the devices was transported to the
central characterization location by Permittees or contractors. For the second event, the accumulation
periods at sites ranged from 36 to 355 days. Though this monitoring event occurred during the dry
season, two unseasonable storms in early and late June resulted in rainfall at all sites installed prior to
June 2011. In addition, sites installed prior to the start of the second event, but not identified before
the first event included rainfall from the previous wet season. As a result rainfall totals at gages near
the 149 monitoring sites ranged from 0 to 15 inches over 0 to 24 wet weather days during the
accumulation periods. Rainfall was not observed during accumulation periods for those sites where
devices were installed after June 2011.
2.2.2. Trash Characterization
Once material cleaned from storm drain inlets was received at the centralized characterization site,
trash was separated from other debris using standard operating procedures outline by BASMAA
(2011b). A third party contractor, Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc., was employed to conduct all trash
characterization activities (Figure 2‐2). Cascadia staff characterized all trash into the following
categories:
Recyclable beverage containers labeled with a California Redemption Value (CRV);
Single‐use, plastic grocery bags;
Polystyrene foam;
Other plastic material;
Paper;
5
A wet day is defined as a 24‐hour period with greater than 0.2 inches of rain
8
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
Metal; and,
Miscellaneous trash.
Material from individual trash categories and other debris were weighed and the volume was measured
for each site during each event. Material was placed in containers between 32 ounces and 5 gallons
(depending on the volume). Weights and volumes were recorded on standardized field data sheets.
Following the completion of measurements, all trash and debris were disposed of properly.
All data recorded on field data sheets were transferred into a project database. To ensure that all data
were transferred correctly, quality assurance and control checks were performed throughout and
following data entry.
2.3. Quality Assurance and Control Procedures
Quality assurance procedures were implemented throughout the project to ensure that high quality
data were obtained. Field forms and monitoring procedures developed by BASMAA (2011b) were used
by all individuals monitoring (cleaning) material from sites. The procedures included specified labeling of
bags of material collected from sites and mandatory cleaning instructions. A training event was also
conducted for field crews to ensure proper understanding of field monitoring and quality control
procedures.
For the vast majority of sites/events, field monitoring procedures were followed and no issues were
observed. However, of the 149 monitoring sites, data from 12 sites were removed from the project due
to one or more of the following issues:
Installation Errors – device was installed incorrectly or in the wrong location;
Maintenance Errors – monitoring occurred at the incorrect site and as a result a storm drain
inlet without a device was cleaned;
Book‐keeping Errors – the location of the device that was cleaned or cleanout date could not be
confirmed;
Land Use Errors – following delineation of the site drainage area and land use analysis, the site
could not be defined as depicting a single land use category.
Jurisdictional Errors – sites included streets swept by the California Department of
Transportation and not a Permittee.
Quality assurance procedures performed during trash characterization included oversight by two project
managers, and reweighing/measurements of material to ensure consistency, accuracy and
completeness. Material from 8 and 19 sites was reweighed and measured during the first and second
characterization events, respectively. Relative percent difference (RPD) calculations were used to assess
the accuracy of measurements. These results are presented in Appendix B.
9
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
3.0 MONITORING AND CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS
The results of the first two characterization events are described below. Though both weights and
volumes were measured, only trash volumes are discussed in this technical memorandum. Volume was
chosen as the standard measurement unit because weights are not representative of lighter more
prevalent trash categories, such as Styrofoam, paper, and single use plastic grocery bags; and weight
measurements can be biased by the moisture content of the material, which varies based on site and
event. Results for both weight and volume measurements will be presented in the Final Technical
Report anticipated for completion in 2012.
3.1. Material Composition and Trash Types
3.1.1. Monitoring Event #1
A total of 626 gallons of material was removed and characterized from 71 sites during the first
monitoring/characterization event. On average (mean), trash represented 22% (by volume) of all
material removed and characterized. Plastic material (other than CRV‐labeled containers and plastic
grocery bags) comprised the largest percentage (54%) of trash characterized during the first event. Trash
identified as CRV‐labeled containers (14%) and paper (12%) made up the next most prevalent trash
types. Plastic grocery bags and polystyrene foam accounted for 7% and 6% of the trash volume
characterized, respectively. Trash percentages in each category are shown in Figure 3.1.
3.1.2. Monitoring Event #2
A total of 1,353 gallons of material was removed and characterized from 149 sites during the second
monitoring/characterization event. Similar to Event #1, on average, trash represented 27% (by volume)
of all material removed and characterized. Plastic material (other than CRV‐labeled containers and
plastic grocery bags) again comprised the largest percentage (47%) of trash characterized. Paper items
were the second most prevalent trash category, comprising 25% of the trash volume. Plastic grocery
bags and polystyrene foam accounted for 8% and 7% of the trash volume, respectively. The percentages
of trash in each category are shown in Figure 3.1.
10
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
Metal
Event #1 0%
Paper Miscellaneous
12% 7%
Recyclable
Beverage
Containers (CRV‐
Debris Trash
labeled)
78% 22% Other Plastic 14%
54%
Plastic Grocery
Bags
7%
Polystyrene Foam
6%
Event #2 Metal
1%
Paper
25% Miscellaneous
9%
Recyclable
Trash Beverage
27% Containers
Debris (CRV‐labeled)
Other Plastic
73% 47%
3%
Plastic Grocery
Bags
8%
Polystyrene Foam
7%
Figure 3.1. Trash types characterized in monitoring events 1 and 2.
3.2. Calculation of Generation Rates
All existing data and associated information on trash captured via monitored full capture treatment
devices at project monitoring sites were compiled into a simple Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Data
underwent quality assurance checks prior to being utilized for generation rate calculation. Any data
deemed suspect was checked and either corrected or removed from the dataset if the data quality could
not be verified. The following sections briefly describe the preliminary data analysis and calculation
methods that were used in developing the preliminary trash generation rates presented in this section.
3.2.1. Individual Site Generation Rate Calculations
Data from 137 sites collected during monitoring events 1 and 2 were used to calculate preliminary trash
generation rates. A site‐specific trash generation rate was developed for each site by performing the
following steps:
1. For both events, the total volume of trash observed and the total accumulation period for each
site were calculated. The result was a total volume of trash collected to‐date at each site and a
total accumulation period (i.e., number of days trash accumulated).
11
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
2. For each site, the total number of wet weather days (i.e., days with >0.2 inches of rain observed
in the nearest rainfall gage) during the total accumulation period was calculated.
3. The street sweeping effectiveness for each monitoring site was then estimated using the
effectiveness curve presented in Figure 3.2 and based on storm frequency (i.e., number of wet
weather days) during the accumulation period, parking enforcement and street sweeping
frequency.
4. A generation rate (volume per day) was then calculated by dividing the total trash volume by the
product of the total accumulation period and the inverse of the street sweeping effectiveness,
as shown in Equation 1.
(1)
where:
R = site‐specific trash generation rate (gal/day)
V = total trash volume for a site during the monitoring period(s)6 (gallons)
D = total accumulation period for a site (days)
E = the street sweeping effectiveness for a site (fraction), as determined from Figure 3.2.
Effectiveness with Parking Enforcement Effectiveness With No Parking Enforcement
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
Street Sweeping Effectiveness
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
Street Sweeping Frequency/Storm Frequency
Figure 3.2. Street sweeping effectiveness curve based on level of parking enforcement and the ratio
of street sweeping frequency to storm frequency (adapted from Armitage 2001).
6
For sites monitored during both events, the sum of the volume for the two events was used.
12
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
3.2.2. Comparison to Explanatory Factors
Based on the conceptual model of trash baseline loads from MS4s (see Figure 2‐1), a number of factors
(e.g., land use, economic profile, rainfall) may affect trash baseline generation and loading. Preliminary
comparisons were made to evaluate the potential relationships between calculated generation rates
and these factors. The results of these comparisons are presented in the following sections.
Land Use
The average percentage of material identified as trash, varied by site and land use. As illustrated in Table
3.1, the lowest average percentages of trash were observed at sites with land uses classified as rural,
low density residential, or urban parks. The highest percentages were observed in sites with industrial,
high density residential and retail/wholesale land uses. Variations in trash percentages are likely due to
both variations in trash generation (i.e., sources) and sources of vegetation (e.g., deciduous trees).
Table 3.1. Number of monitoring sites and percentages of
trash in each land use category.
Land use # of sites % Trash
Rural Residential 1 1
Low Density Residential 17 6
Urban Parks 5 6
K‐12 Schools 9 14
Commercial and Services 8 21
Retail and Wholesale 52 28
High Density Residential 28 30
Light and Other Industrial 9 31
Heavy Industrial 4 33
Total 137
To assess relationships between trash generation rates and land use, sites were grouped into their
specific land use classes and box‐plots were created (Figure 3.3). Visual comparisons of plots suggest
that land use appears to play an important factor in trash generation, and therefore generation rates
were developed for seven land use class categories. Due to the limited number of sites and lack of
differentiation in generation rates, sites depicting light industrial, heavy industrial and
commercial/services were grouped together.
Once additional data are obtained via the third monitoring event, more robust statistical comparisons
between land uses will be conducted to further assess the relationships and differences in generation
rates between land uses.
13
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
10000
Generation Rates (gallons/acre/year)
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
K-12 Schools
Urban Parks
Retail and Wholesale
High Density Residential
Commercial and Services/
Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
Heavy, Light and
Other Industrial
Figure 3.3. Comparison of generation rates by land use class.
Economic Profile and Population Density
Sites monitored to‐date represent a range of economic profiles (i.e., household median incomes) and
population densities. These factors may affect trash generation and further explain variability within
each land use class. However, due to the limited timeframe available to complete this portion of the
project and knowing that additional data collected via event #3 would soon be available, statistical tests
of correlations between these potentially important factors and generation rates have not yet been
conducted. As part of the Final Technical Report development in 2012, statistical analyses will be
conducted on the entire trash generation rate dataset (including data from event #3) to better assess
the importance of economic profiles and population densities in trash generation.
3.2.3. Baseline Generation Rates
Based on the initial analyses described in the previous sections, preliminary trash generation rates were
developed for seven land use classes. An average generation rate for each land use class was developed
by simply dividing the sum of the site‐specific daily generation rates for sites within that class, by the
sum of the effective loading areas for those set of sites. Then, the average daily generation rate for each
land use category was simply multiplied by 365 days to estimate the preliminary annual baseline trash
generation rate for each land use class. These preliminary generation rates are illustrated in Table 3.2.
14
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
Table 3.2. Preliminary Trash Generation Rates by Land Use Category.
Annual
Land Use Generation Rate
(gal/acre/yr)
Retail and Wholesale 29.99
High Density Residential 17.04
K‐12 Schools 13.14
Commercial/Services and
7.08
Heavy, Light and Other Industrial
Urban Parks 2.14
Low Density Residential 1.25
7
Rural Residential 0.17
4.0 DEVELOPING TRASH BASELINE LOADING RATES AND
LOADS
Provisions C.10.a(ii) of the MRP requires Permittees to develop and submit a baseline trash load to the
Water Board. The following sections describe the methods and equation used to convert generation
rates into baseline loads. In summary, Permittees first applied these rates to their effective loading
areas within the their jurisdictional areas. The result was a generated load that did not account for key
baseline control measures implemented by a Permittee. The generated load, therefore, must be
adjusted based on the estimated effectiveness of these baseline control measures. The result of these
adjustments is a baseline load.
4.1. Baseline Trash Loading Equation
Based on the MS4 trash loads equation presented in Armitage and Rooseboom (2000), Equation 2 was
developed to establish the annual trash baseline load from MS4s. This equation is based on the factors
described in the previous section and methods described in the project sampling and analysis plan (EOA
2011b).
∑ (2)
where:
= preliminary baseline trash load from MS4 (gal/year)
i = land use category
n = total number of land use categories (7)
Ri = average annual trash generation rate for land use category i (gal/acre) from
Table 4.2
Ai = total effective loading area in land use category i (acre)
7
Due to the limited sample size in the rural residential land use class, low density residential sites with generation
rates in the bottom quartile were included in this calculation.
15
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
S i = Estimated baseline street sweeping effectiveness for an effective loading area
with land use i (dimensionless) based on Figure 3.2
Pi = Estimated effectiveness of baseline maintenance conducted at a pump station
with a trash rack (0.25) draining an effective loading area with land use i
(dimensionless)
D = Estimated effectiveness of baseline storm drain inlet maintenance (0.05)
4.2. Jurisdictional and Effective Loading Areas
For the purpose for developing baseline trash loads, a Permittee’s jurisdictional area was defined as all
urban land areas within its geographical boundaries that are directly subject to MRP requirements. Land
use areas identified by a Permittee that were not included within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area
include:
Federal and State of California Facilities and Roads (e.g., Interstates, State Highways, Military
Bases, Prisons);
Roads Owned and Maintained by other municipalities (e.g., Unincorporated Counties);
Public and Private Colleges and Universities;
Non‐urban Land Uses (e.g., agriculture, forest, rangeland, open space, wetlands, water);
Communication or Power Facilities (e.g., PG & E Substations);
Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities; and,
Other Transportation Facilities (e.g., airports, railroads, and maritime shipping ports).
Permittee jurisdictional areas were further delineated into effective trash loading areas in an attempt
to represent the land areas that are believed to generate the vast majority of trash that could reach an
MS4. The goal was to eliminate land areas not directly connected to the MS4 or contributing trash to a
Permittee’s MS4 (e.g., large backyards and rooftops), while providing consistency with areas affected by
control measure implementation. Effective trash loading areas obviously vary between sites and
sources, making delineation challenging. As a first order approximation, effective loading areas were
developed by creating a 200‐foot buffer that extends from either side of street center lines within
Permittee jurisdictional areas (i.e., 400‐foot total). This effective loading area serves as the land area for
which generation and baseline loading rates are applied to develop a baseline load. An illustration of an
example effective loading area is presented in Figure 4.1.
16
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
Street
Center
lines
Effective Loading Area
(400 ft buffer)
Figure 4.1 Example of effective trash loading areas.
4.3. Accounting for Baseline Control Programs
To account for current load reductions due to baseline control measures, trash generation rates were
adjusted based on the estimated effectiveness (i.e., percent removal) of three key control measures.
These control measures are described in the following sections.
4.3.1. Baseline Street Sweeping
Street sweeping programs can substantially affect trash loads to MS4s (BASMAA 2011a). Specifically, the
effectiveness of a sweeping program in reducing trash is governed by the frequency of sweeping and the
ability of a sweeper to reach the curb, as a result of parking enforcement or the lack of parked during
sweeping hours. A "baseline" street sweeping program is defined as the sweeping frequency and
parking enforcement (or equivalent) implemented by Permitee prior to effective date of the MRP. To
not penalize implementers of effective street sweeping programs prior to the effective date of the MRP,
however, a baseline street sweeping frequency ceiling was established. The baseline frequency ceiling
was defined as once per week for retail land uses and twice per month for all other land uses. These
sweeping frequencies represent the average frequency currently implemented by Permittees.
For those Permittees that currently sweep at an enhanced level (i.e., at a frequency greater than the
baseline ceiling), only trash load reductions up to the baseline ceiling level are accounted for in a
Permittee’s baseline trash load (Figure 4.2). Consistent with the Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method,
load reductions associated with implementation levels greater than the baseline ceiling are accounted
for as “enhanced” control measures (i.e., toward load reduction goals). For those Permittees that sweep
less frequent than the baseline ceiling, sweeping frequencies currently implemented by a Permittee
serve as the baseline level of implementation.
17
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
Baseline Ceiling Enhanced (Existing or Future)
12
Sweeping Frequency (times/month)
Monthly Sweeping Frequency
10
8
6
4
2
0
Retail/Wholesale Other Land Uses
Land Use
Figure 4.2. Baseline ceilings for street sweeping frequencies in retail/wholesale and other land uses.
4.3.2. Baseline Storm Drain Inlet Cleaning
In addition to street sweeping, baseline storm drain inlet maintenance (cleaning) can also remove trash
that would have otherwise entered an MS4. Based on a review of annual reports and queries of
Permittee staff, a baseline ceiling for storm drain inlet maintenance was established at an average
frequency of once per year. For those Permittees that currently maintain their storm drain inlets at an
enhanced level (i.e., at a frequency greater than the baseline ceiling), only trash load reductions up to
the baseline ceiling level are accounted for in a Permittee’s baseline trash load. Consistent with the
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method, load reductions associated with implementation levels greater
than the baseline ceiling are accounted for as “enhanced” control measures (i.e., toward load reduction
goals). For those Permittees that maintain less frequent than the baseline ceiling, the current frequency
implemented by a Permittee serve as the baseline level of implementation.
Based on the literature review conducted by BASMAA (2011a), maintaining an annual maintenance
frequency provides a reduction of 5% of the trash load remaining after accounting for the load removed
via baseline sweeping.
4.3.3. Baseline Stormwater Pump Station Maintenance
For Permittees that maintain pump stations with trash racks, the estimated volume of trash removed
annually from each pump station prior to the effective date of the MRP is considered the baseline level
of implementation. Baseline pump station maintenance was assumed to capture roughly 25% of the
trash draining to the pump station. This effectiveness rating was based on the review of control measure
effectiveness conducted by BASMAA (2011a).
18
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
4.4. Reporting of Trash Baseline Loads
Preliminary estimates of trash baseline loads from Bay Area MS4s are reported in Permittee‐specific
Short‐Term Trash Load Reduction Plans submitted to the Water Board on February 1, 2012. Baseline
trash loads were developed consistently among all Permittees and are based on the best available
information. As additional information becomes available and knowledge is gained through the
development process, methods described in this technical memorandum to develop baseline loading
rates may be revised. Additionally, trash generation and baseline loading rates and loads may be revised
based on new information.
5.0 REFERENCES
Armitage, N., & Rooseboom, A. (2000). The removal of urban litter from stormwater conduits and
streams: Paper 1 ‐ The quantities involved and catchment litter management options. Water SA , 26 (2),
181‐187.
Armitage, N. (2001). The removal of Urban Litter from Stormwater Drainage Systems. Ch 19 in
Stormwater Collection Systems Design Handbook. L.W. Mays, Ed., McGraw‐Hill Companies, Inc. ISBN 0‐
07‐1354471‐9, New York, USA, 2001, 35 pp.
BASMAA (2011a). Methods to Estimate Baseline Trash Loads from Bay Area Municipal Stormwater
Systems: Technical Memorandum #1. Prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association (BASMAA). Oakland. Prepared by Eisenberg, Olivieri and Associates (EOA).
BASMAA (2011b). Baseline Trash Loading Rates from Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Systems: Sampling
and Analysis Plan. Prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA).
Oakland. Prepared by Eisenberg, Olivieri and Associates (EOA).
19
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
GLOSSARY
Baseline Implementation: The level of implementation for a specific trash control measure that forms
the starting point for tracking progress toward trash load reduction.
Baseline Load: the sum of the pollutant loads from a Permittee’s effective loading area, adjusted for
baseline implementation of street sweeping, storm drain inlet maintenance, and pump station
maintenance.
Best Management Practice (BMP): Any activity, technology, process, operational method or measure,
or engineered system, which when implemented prevents, controls, removes, or reduces pollution. A
BMP is also referred to as a control measure.
Conceptual Model: A model that explicitly describes and graphically represents all existing knowledge
on the sources of a pollutant, its fate and transport, and/or its effects in the ecosystem.
Control Measure: See Best Management Practice.
Discharge: A release or flow of stormwater or other substance from a stormwater conveyance system.
Effectiveness (with regard to Control Measures): A measure of how well a control measure reduces
trash from entering the MS4.
Effective Loading Area: The land area that directly contributes trash to a Permittee’s MS4. Operationally
defined as a 200‐foot buffer outward from street centerlines within a Permittee's jurisdictional area.
Full Capture Device: A single device or series of devices that can trap all particles retained by a 5 mm
mesh screen, and has a treatment capacity that exceeds the peak flow rate resulting from a one‐year,
one‐hour storm in the subdrainage area treated by the BMP.
Generated Load: The load (volume) of trash that is available to an MS4 under a no street sweeping,
storm drain inlet and pump station maintenance scenario.
Generation Rate: The rate (expressed as volume/acre/year) for specific land areas at which trash is
available to an MS4 under a no street sweeping, storm drain inlet and pump station maintenance
scenario.
Jurisdictional Area: All urban land areas within a Permittee's boundaries that are subject to the
requirements in the MRP and for which a municipality has oversight.
Litter: As defined by California Code Section 68055.1(g), litter means all improperly discarded waste
material, including, but not limited to, convenience food, beverage, and other product packages or
containers constructed of steel, aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and other natural and synthetic
materials, thrown or deposited on the lands and water.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): "a conveyance or system of conveyances (including
roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man‐made
channels, or storm drains): (i) Owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district,
association, or other public body (created to or pursuant to state law) including special districts under
state law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian
tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency
under section 208 of the Clean Water Act that discharges into waters of the United States. (ii) Designed
or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; (iii) Which is not a combined sewer; and (iv) Which is not
part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2." (40 CFR 122.26(b)(8))
20
2/1/2012
Technical Memorandum
Receiving Waters: Natural water bodies (e.g., creeks, lakes, bays, estuaries)
Stormwater: Runoff from roofs, roads and other surfaces that is generated during rainfall and snow
events and flows into a stormwater conveyance system.
Storm Drain Inlet: Part of the stormwater drainage system where surface runoff enters the
underground conveyance system. Includes side inlets located adjacent to curbs and grate inlets located
on the surface of a street or parking lot.
Storm Drain Insert: A device (e.g., screen or basket) designed to capture trash capture within a storm
drain inlet.
Stormwater Conveyance System: Any pipe, ditch or gully, or system of pipes, ditches, or gullies, that is
owned or operated by a governmental entity and used for collecting and conveying stormwater.
Trash: Litter (as defined by California Code Section 68055.1g), excluding sediments, sand, vegetation, oil
and grease, and exotic species, that cannot pass through a 5 mm mesh screen.
Urban Runoff: All flows in a stormwater drainage system and consists stormwater (wet weather flows)
and non‐storm water illicit discharges (dry weather flows).
21
2/1/2012
Baseline Trash Generation Rates
APPENDIX A
Monitoring Site Descriptions
22
2/1/2012
Appendix A ‐ Monitoring Site Descriptions
Dominant Land Use Days Average Median
Parking Pop Density‐within 2‐acre
BASMAA within Hydrologic Between Household Income
City County Latitude Longitude Enforcement (or buffer around site
Site ID Drainage Area and 2‐ Street in 2‐acre buffer
Equivalent) (Individuals/acre)
acre buffer around site Sweeping around site
BE01 Brisbane San Mateo 37.68004 ‐122.39849 High Density Residential none no $58,600 15.56
BK01 Berkeley Alameda 37.85756 ‐122.26772 Retail and Wholesale 3.5 yes $35,300 20.12
BK02 Berkeley Alameda 37.86734 ‐122.27033 K‐12 Schools none yes $13,100 30.03
BK03 Berkeley Alameda 37.87002 ‐122.28412 Retail and Wholesale 1.4 yes $27,800 23.74
BK04 Berkeley Alameda 37.85653 ‐122.29489 Heavy Industrial 15 no $33,800 0.43
BR01 Brentwood Contra Costa 37.9618 ‐121.73534 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $98,300 6.3
BR02 Brentwood Contra Costa 37.93997 ‐121.73777 Retail and Wholesale 14 yes $141,600 5.44
BR04 Brentwood Contra Costa 37.93134 ‐121.69672 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $54,600 8.88
DN01 Dublin Alameda 37.70407 ‐121.91489 Urban Parks 7 yes $72,100 4.67
DN02 Dublin Alameda 37.70386 ‐121.914 Urban Parks 7 yes $72,100 4.67
DN03 Dublin Alameda 37.71684 ‐121.92666 Low Density Residential 7 yes $76,700 9.32
DN04 Dublin Alameda 37.71481 ‐121.92721 Low Density Residential 15 yes $73,900 10.5
FR01 Fremont Alameda 37.57133 ‐122.03228 Retail and Wholesale 30 yes $73,200 12.8
FR02 Fremont Alameda 37.56358 ‐122.01732 K‐12 Schools 30 yes $66,700 12.39
FR03 Fremont Alameda 37.53444 ‐121.96659 Retail and Wholesale 30 yes $35,000 28.05
FR04 Fremont Alameda 37.53171 ‐121.95881 Retail and Wholesale 30 yes $52,700 14.31
LV01 Livermore Alameda 37.7015 ‐121.81461 Commercial and Services 7 yes $199,100 1.21
LV02 Livermore Alameda 37.69917 ‐121.77336 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $107,800 3.54
OK01 Oakland Alameda 37.77387 ‐122.22911 Retail and Wholesale none yes $30,200 8.01
23
2/1/2012
Dominant Land Use Days Average Median
Parking Pop Density‐within 2‐acre
BASMAA within Hydrologic Between Household Income
City County Latitude Longitude Enforcement (or buffer around site
Site ID Drainage Area and 2‐ Street in 2‐acre buffer
Equivalent) (Individuals/acre)
acre buffer around site Sweeping around site
OK02 Oakland Alameda 37.76932 ‐122.2291 Heavy Industrial none yes $37,500 4.97
OK04 Oakland Alameda 37.80312 ‐122.28091 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $13,700 14.62
OR01 Orinda Contra Costa 37.87842 ‐122.18295 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $103,900 0.97
PL01 Pleasanton Alameda 37.70028 ‐121.87022 Retail and Wholesale 15 yes $99,300 8.19
PL02 Pleasanton Alameda 37.69915 ‐121.89833 Commercial and Services 7 yes $71,100 1.64
RI01 Richmond Contra Costa 37.93302 ‐122.32921 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $40,200 13.96
RI02 Richmond Contra Costa 37.92248 ‐122.34367 High Density Residential 30 yes $14,400 1.6
RI03 Richmond Contra Costa 37.9241 ‐122.3478 High Density Residential 7 yes $14,400 1.6
SJ01 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36732 ‐121.86348 Light Industrial 30 no $54,800 14.23
SJ03 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36713 ‐121.86334 Light Industrial 30 no $54,800 14.23
SJ04 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36661 ‐121.86423 Light Industrial 30 no $54,800 14.23
SJ05 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36611 ‐121.8652 Light Industrial 30 no $54,800 14.23
SJ06 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36483 ‐121.86717 Light Industrial 30 no $49,600 11.35
SJ07 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36437 ‐121.87085 Light Industrial 7 yes $39,000 4.07
SJ08 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36299 ‐121.86952 Light Industrial 7 no $39,000 4.07
SJ09 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35981 ‐121.86945 Heavy Industrial 7 yes $39,000 4.07
SJ10 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35989 ‐121.86932 Heavy Industrial 7 yes $39,000 4.07
SJ11 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36332 ‐121.86296 High Density Residential 30 yes $54,800 14.23
SJ12 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36332 ‐121.86279 High Density Residential 30 yes $54,800 14.23
SJ15 San Jose Santa Clara 37.34758 ‐121.82962 High Density Residential 30 yes $39,500 29.4
24
2/1/2012
Dominant Land Use Days Average Median
Parking Pop Density‐within 2‐acre
BASMAA within Hydrologic Between Household Income
City County Latitude Longitude Enforcement (or buffer around site
Site ID Drainage Area and 2‐ Street in 2‐acre buffer
Equivalent) (Individuals/acre)
acre buffer around site Sweeping around site
SJ16 San Jose Santa Clara 37.3469 ‐121.82911 High Density Residential 30 yes $39,500 29.4
SJ17 San Jose Santa Clara 37.34649 ‐121.82872 High Density Residential 30 yes $39,500 29.4
SJ19 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35354 ‐121.82326 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $74,600 19.31
SJ20 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35593 ‐121.81929 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $66,700 20.65
SJ21 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35635 ‐121.81903 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $66,200 19.42
SJ22 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35018 ‐121.81949 High Density Residential 30 no $63,800 21.97
SJ23 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35009 ‐121.8192 High Density Residential 30 yes $71,000 21.76
SJ24 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35158 ‐121.81481 High Density Residential 22 yes $75,700 22.59
SJ25 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35165 ‐121.81287 High Density Residential 30 yes $73,300 26.52
SJ26 San Jose Santa Clara 37.35168 ‐121.81274 High Density Residential 30 yes $72,900 26.82
SJ27 San Jose Santa Clara 37.31965 ‐121.82803 Retail and Wholesale 30 yes $43,000 20.91
SJ28 San Jose Santa Clara 37.31951 ‐121.82705 Retail and Wholesale 30 yes $43,000 20.91
SJ29 San Jose Santa Clara 37.31884 ‐121.82336 Commercial and Services 30 yes $43,000 20.91
SJ30 San Jose Santa Clara 37.32169 ‐121.82715 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $50,800 25.63
SJ31 San Jose Santa Clara 37.32269 ‐121.82606 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $55,900 24.45
SJ32 San Jose Santa Clara 37.32282 ‐121.82496 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $62,800 13.66
SJ33 San Jose Santa Clara 37.32402 ‐121.82375 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $58,800 19.87
SJ34 San Jose Santa Clara 37.32645 ‐121.82018 Retail and Wholesale 7 no $63,100 5.77
SJ35 San Jose Santa Clara 37.31279 ‐121.8524 Light Industrial 19 yes $42,100 3.1
SJ36 San Jose Santa Clara 37.2981 ‐121.83446 Low Density Residential 30 yes $45,100 26.32
25
2/1/2012
Dominant Land Use Days Average Median
Parking Pop Density‐within 2‐acre
BASMAA within Hydrologic Between Household Income
City County Latitude Longitude Enforcement (or buffer around site
Site ID Drainage Area and 2‐ Street in 2‐acre buffer
Equivalent) (Individuals/acre)
acre buffer around site Sweeping around site
SJ37 San Jose Santa Clara 37.29903 ‐121.82384 Retail and Wholesale 30 yes $93,200 10.03
SJ38 San Jose Santa Clara 37.29407 ‐121.83206 K‐12 Schools 30 yes $60,300 11.19
SJ39 San Jose Santa Clara 37.31618 ‐121.78791 High Density Residential 30 yes $91,500 18.62
SJ40 San Jose Santa Clara 37.31412 ‐121.77331 Retail and Wholesale 30 no $151,100 2.72
SJ41 San Jose Santa Clara 37.30691 ‐121.76065 High Density Residential 30 yes $151,100 22.84
SJ42 San Jose Santa Clara 37.30727 ‐121.76765 High Density Residential 30 yes $151,100 10.72
SJ43 San Jose Santa Clara 37.30241 ‐121.77415 Urban Parks 7 yes $134,500 2.99
SJ44 San Jose Santa Clara 37.29503 ‐121.77499 Rural Residential 30 yes $133,800 3.43
SJ46 San Jose Santa Clara 37.24728 ‐121.7758 Commercial and Services 7 yes $123,200 0.79
SJ47 San Jose Santa Clara 37.23881 ‐121.77704 Light Industrial 7 yes $91,000 1.77
SJ48 San Jose Santa Clara 37.23055 ‐121.82958 Low Density Residential 30 yes $104,100 7.93
SJ49 San Jose Santa Clara 37.20577 ‐121.83005 Low Density Residential 30 yes $200,000 10.37
SJ50 San Jose Santa Clara 37.19833 ‐121.83663 Low Density Residential 30 yes $122,000 0.61
SJ51 San Jose Santa Clara 37.24086 ‐121.87439 Urban Parks 30 yes $189,800 5.18
SJ52 San Jose Santa Clara 37.25049 ‐121.85738 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $146,900 12.35
SJ53 San Jose Santa Clara 37.25258 ‐121.85863 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $159,800 10.37
SJ54 San Jose Santa Clara 37.24645 ‐121.9148 Low Density Residential 30 yes $81,400 10.82
SJ55 San Jose Santa Clara 37.26037 ‐121.93147 Retail and Wholesale none yes $95,600 8.47
SJ56 San Jose Santa Clara 37.27349 ‐121.93459 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $113,800 9.47
SJ58 San Jose Santa Clara 37.30137 ‐121.95665 High Density Residential 30 yes $135,000 36.06
26
2/1/2012
Dominant Land Use Days Average Median
Parking Pop Density‐within 2‐acre
BASMAA within Hydrologic Between Household Income
City County Latitude Longitude Enforcement (or buffer around site
Site ID Drainage Area and 2‐ Street in 2‐acre buffer
Equivalent) (Individuals/acre)
acre buffer around site Sweeping around site
SJ59 San Jose Santa Clara 37.30102 ‐121.95654 High Density Residential 30 yes $150,400 44.47
SJ61 San Jose Santa Clara 37.29803 ‐122.00955 Low Density Residential 30 yes $110,700 13.69
SJ64 San Jose Santa Clara 37.34276 ‐121.84025 High Density Residential 30 yes $48,600 33.11
SJ65 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36837 ‐121.91488 Commercial and Services 7 yes $60,100 5.76
SJ66 San Jose Santa Clara 37.37709 ‐121.90272 Commercial and Services 7 yes $59,900 4.55
SJ69 San Jose Santa Clara 37.38494 ‐121.89051 High Density Residential 7 yes $87,300 20.98
SJ70 San Jose Santa Clara 37.39061 ‐121.86838 Low Density Residential 30 yes $67,000 12.44
SJ71 San Jose Santa Clara 37.38723 ‐121.8483 High Density Residential 30 yes $112,900 19.38
SJ72 San Jose Santa Clara 37.40462 ‐121.84836 High Density Residential 30 yes $183,500 0.67
SJ74 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36014 ‐121.85287 High Density Residential 30 yes $53,500 45.31
SJ75 San Jose Santa Clara 37.36017 ‐121.853 High Density Residential 30 yes $53,300 45.51
SJ76 San Jose Santa Clara 37.3594 ‐121.84981 High Density Residential 30 yes $55,500 42.52
SL01 San Leandro Alameda 37.72223 ‐122.15454 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $41,700 11.89
SL02 San Leandro Alameda 37.72278 ‐122.15629 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 yes $42,400 8.4
SL03 San Leandro Alameda 37.70068 ‐122.14023 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $43,500 20.99
SL04 San Leandro Alameda 37.69638 ‐122.13911 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $46,700 20.93
SL05 San Leandro Alameda 37.72063 ‐122.15486 Low Density Residential 30 no $39,800 22
SL06 San Leandro Alameda 37.72227 ‐122.15397 Retail and Wholesale none no $41,300 13.86
SL07 San Leandro Alameda 37.72223 ‐122.15371 Retail and Wholesale none no $40,900 15.85
SL08 San Leandro Alameda 37.72218 ‐122.15189 Low Density Residential 30 no $41,200 17.84
27
2/1/2012
Dominant Land Use Days Average Median
Parking Pop Density‐within 2‐acre
BASMAA within Hydrologic Between Household Income
City County Latitude Longitude Enforcement (or buffer around site
Site ID Drainage Area and 2‐ Street in 2‐acre buffer
Equivalent) (Individuals/acre)
acre buffer around site Sweeping around site
SL09 San Leandro Alameda 37.72256 ‐122.15269 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 yes $41,000 17.74
SL10 San Leandro Alameda 37.72288977 ‐122.152863 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 no $42,000 16.1
SL11 San Leandro Alameda 37.72362 ‐122.1538 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 no $42,600 15.52
SL12 San Leandro Alameda 37.72303 ‐122.1549 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 yes $42,400 8.4
SL13 San Leandro Alameda 37.72434 ‐122.15504 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 yes $42,500 12.97
SL14 San Leandro Alameda 37.72449 ‐122.1574 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 yes $42,400 8.4
SL15 San Leandro Alameda 37.72501 ‐122.15565 Commercial and Services 7 yes $41,000 17.63
SL16 San Leandro Alameda 37.72544 ‐122.15455 Commercial and Services 7 yes $39,800 22.97
SL17 San Leandro Alameda 37.72616 ‐122.15451 Commercial and Services 2.3 yes $37,900 24.13
SL18 San Leandro Alameda 37.72693 ‐122.1561 High Density Residential 30 yes $37,900 24.13
SL19 San Leandro Alameda 37.7175 ‐122.14295 K‐12 Schools 7 yes $43,100 13.27
SL20 San Leandro Alameda 37.71527 ‐122.13972 High Density Residential 19 no $42,900 15.53
SL21 San Leandro Alameda 37.7134 ‐122.13728 Low Density Residential 25 no $42,800 18.64
SL22 San Leandro Alameda 37.71283 ‐122.13644 K‐12 Schools 19 yes $45,500 17.7
SL23 San Leandro Alameda 37.71211 ‐122.16221 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $57,700 6.15
SL24 San Leandro Alameda 37.68676 ‐122.13872 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $42,200 10.9
SL25 San Leandro Alameda 37.68674207 ‐122.1370364 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $45,000 10.07
SM01 San Mateo San Mateo 37.53978 ‐122.31383 K‐12 Schools 15 yes $74,800 9.09
SM02 San Mateo San Mateo 37.54567 ‐122.32826 Low Density Residential 15 yes $119,500 9.8
SM03 San Mateo San Mateo 37.53572 ‐122.31082 Low Density Residential 15 yes $87,600 10.61
28
2/1/2012
Dominant Land Use Days Average Median
Parking Pop Density‐within 2‐acre
BASMAA within Hydrologic Between Household Income
City County Latitude Longitude Enforcement (or buffer around site
Site ID Drainage Area and 2‐ Street in 2‐acre buffer
Equivalent) (Individuals/acre)
acre buffer around site Sweeping around site
SM04 San Mateo San Mateo 37.53647 ‐122.30906 Low Density Residential 15 yes $77,700 13.11
SM05 San Mateo San Mateo 37.55487 ‐122.32848 Low Density Residential 15 yes $119,100 9.46
SM06 San Mateo San Mateo 37.55719 ‐122.33249 Low Density Residential 15 yes $122,500 9.07
SM07 San Mateo San Mateo 37.56544 ‐122.32262 Retail and Wholesale none yes $47,000 15.13
SM08 San Mateo San Mateo 37.56728 ‐122.32005 Retail and Wholesale 15 yes $54,100 20.32
SM09 San Mateo San Mateo 37.55509 ‐122.30704 Retail and Wholesale 15 yes $61,300 12.59
SM10 San Mateo San Mateo 37.55388 ‐122.30559 Retail and Wholesale 15 yes $60,000 5.44
SM11 San Mateo San Mateo 37.52993 ‐122.28971 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 yes $47,400 13.38
SM12 San Mateo San Mateo 37.53267 ‐122.31431 K‐12 Schools 15 no $90,000 7.63
SP01 San Pablo Contra Costa 37.95202 ‐122.33293 Retail and Wholesale 7.5 yes $33,700 14.3
SU01 Sunnyvale Santa Clara 37.41715 ‐122.01632 Urban Parks 14 yes $59,100 0.14
SU02 Sunnyvale Santa Clara 37.38306 ‐122.05709 High Density Residential 14 no $67,900 46.17
SU03 Sunnyvale Santa Clara 37.39502 ‐122.01828 K‐12 Schools 14 yes $56,500 20.46
SU04 Sunnyvale Santa Clara 37.39301 ‐122.01894 K‐12 Schools 14 no $56,700 20.83
WC01 Walnut Creek Contra Costa 37.92923912 ‐122.0160505 Retail and Wholesale 15 yes $96,600 6.28
WC02 Walnut Creek Contra Costa 37.91897 ‐122.03771 Retail and Wholesale 7 yes $120,500 8.53
WC03 Walnut Creek Contra Costa 37.89737 ‐122.06758 Retail and Wholesale 2.3 yes $48,700 9.94
WC04 Walnut Creek Contra Costa 37.87905 ‐122.07484 Retail and Wholesale 30 yes $105,100 6.38
29
2/1/2012
APPENDIX B
Quality Assurance
Relative Percent Reduction Calculations
30
2/1/2012
Event 1
Duplicate
Sample Total Relative Percent
BASMAA ID Total Volume
Volume (gallons) Difference
(gallons)
SJ05 9.36 8.96 ‐4.3%
SJ20 32.72 29.72 ‐9.2%
SJ25 19.28 18.94 ‐1.8%
SJ31 11.34 10.49 ‐7.5%
SM01 20.79 19.50 ‐6.2%
OK02 8.87 8.15 ‐8.1%
SL02 6.50 6.80 4.5%
SL03 9.34 9.58 2.5%
SL04 20.91 19.65 ‐6.0%
Mean ‐4.0%
Event 2
Duplicate
Sample Total Relative Percent
BASMAA ID Total Volume
Volume (gallons) Difference
(gallons)
OK02 18.52 17.99 ‐2.90%
OK04 9.44 8.87 ‐6.00%
RI01 72.84 72.77 ‐0.10%
RI02 21.19 20.04 ‐5.40%
SJ11 7.73 5.71 ‐26.20%
SJ12 4.81 5.01 4.20%
SJ29 8.91 7.16 ‐19.60%
SJ30 11.51 10.66 ‐7.40%
SJ31 11.04 9.35 ‐15.20%
SJ51 8.91 8.23 ‐7.60%
SJ74 6.15 5.96 ‐3.10%
SL09 12.52 11.39 ‐9.00%
SL11 11.16 10.61 ‐4.90%
SL23 15.91 15.59 ‐2.00%
SL25 25.42 25.35 ‐0.30%
SM12 23.89 22.37 ‐6.40%
SP01 42.38 38.37 ‐9.50%
SU03 23.84 22.51 ‐5.60%
WC01 28.2 27.73 ‐1.70%
Mean ‐6.80%
31
2/1/2012
APPENDIX C
Monitoring Results
Trash Characterization Volumes
32
2/1/2012
Appendix C ‐ Monitoring Results Trash Characterization Volumes (gallons)
Event 1 (May 2011)
Trash Types
BASMAA Total Trash Recyclable Styrofoam Grand
Site ID Debris Total Plastic Total
Beverage Food and Other
Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous
Containers Beverage Plastic
Bags
(CRV‐labeled) Ware
BK01 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07
BK02 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54
BK03 4.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.64
BK04 2.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.19
DN01 1.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12
DN02 2.14 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.27
DN03 11.61 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.78
DN04 0.71 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91
FR01 18.57 0.22 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.03 18.80
FR02 4.11 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.00 4.35
FR03 2.14 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.00 2.41
FR04 5.71 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.00 5.99
LV01 5.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.00 5.34
LV02 2.14 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.17 0.00 0.08 2.50
OK01 7.32 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.05 0.00 0.04 7.69
OK02 5.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.39
OK04 1.07 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.28 0.08 0.00 0.04 1.52
PL01 3.75 0.50 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.00 4.25
PL02 1.79 0.54 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.05 2.33
SJ01 2.86 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.48
SJ03 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.67
SJ04 1.43 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.05 0.00 0.11 2.26
33
2/1/2012
Trash Types
BASMAA Total Trash Recyclable Styrofoam Grand
Site ID Debris Total Plastic Total
Beverage Food and Other
Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous
Containers Beverage Plastic
Bags
(CRV‐labeled) Ware
SJ05 2.50 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.22 0.00 0.11 3.37
SJ06 17.14 0.87 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.11 0.00 0.10 18.01
SJ07 3.93 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.17 0.00 0.06 4.82
SJ08 24.64 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.05 0.00 0.00 25.59
SJ09 1.79 0.98 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76
SJ10 2.86 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.67 0.00 0.00 3.86
SJ11 3.93 1.07 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
SJ12 5.36 1.09 0.47 0.15 0.00 0.40 0.08 0.00 0.00 6.45
SJ15 2.50 1.18 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.17 0.00 0.17 3.68
SJ16 8.04 1.42 0.00 0.28 0.17 0.11 0.83 0.00 0.03 9.46
SJ17 18.75 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.14 0.11 0.61 20.28
SJ19 9.11 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.89 0.10 0.00 0.56 10.71
SJ20 10.00 1.67 0.09 0.23 0.00 1.25 0.05 0.00 0.05 11.67
SJ21 8.57 1.73 0.00 0.44 0.07 1.07 0.05 0.00 0.10 10.30
SJ22 5.00 1.76 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.89 0.56 0.00 0.09 6.76
SJ23 3.93 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.00 1.07 0.45 0.00 0.18 5.78
SJ24 18.26 1.89 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.94 0.14 0.00 0.14 20.15
SJ25 7.50 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.11 0.00 0.22 9.44
SJ26 8.66 1.95 0.13 0.28 0.13 1.16 0.17 0.00 0.09 10.61
SJ27 3.75 1.95 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.61 0.17 0.00 0.06 5.70
SJ28 7.50 2.25 0.00 0.56 0.00 1.25 0.33 0.00 0.11 9.75
SJ29 1.61 2.34 0.22 0.17 0.11 1.43 0.33 0.00 0.08 3.95
SJ30 6.16 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.61 0.03 0.11 8.51
SJ31 8.39 2.41 0.16 0.28 0.00 1.43 0.26 0.00 0.28 10.80
SJ32 10.36 2.43 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.13 0.00 1.11 12.79
34
2/1/2012
Trash Types
BASMAA Total Trash Recyclable Styrofoam Grand
Site ID Debris Total Plastic Total
Beverage Food and Other
Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous
Containers Beverage Plastic
Bags
(CRV‐labeled) Ware
SJ33 2.68 2.56 0.00 0.13 0.67 1.43 0.28 0.00 0.06 5.24
SJ34 10.18 2.58 0.00 0.06 0.22 1.25 1.00 0.00 0.06 12.76
SL01 13.57 2.67 0.11 0.11 0.11 1.79 0.22 0.00 0.33 16.25
SL02 1.79 2.79 0.00 0.44 0.06 1.79 0.33 0.06 0.11 4.58
SL03 6.96 2.98 0.00 0.00 0.17 2.14 0.44 0.00 0.22 9.94
SL04 5.36 3.07 0.34 0.22 0.44 1.79 0.28 0.00 0.00 8.43
SM01 1.43 3.20 0.69 0.28 0.28 1.43 0.34 0.00 0.17 4.62
SM02 5.54 3.41 0.64 0.00 0.10 2.05 0.44 0.00 0.17 8.94
SM03 5.71 3.44 0.09 0.00 0.44 2.68 0.16 0.00 0.07 9.16
SM04 15.40 3.71 0.19 0.72 0.20 1.79 0.44 0.00 0.36 19.11
SM05 7.41 3.72 0.16 0.22 0.20 2.41 0.50 0.00 0.23 11.13
SM06 2.59 4.06 0.09 0.00 0.26 3.21 0.23 0.07 0.20 6.65
SM07 3.93 4.34 1.00 0.45 0.00 2.14 0.45 0.00 0.28 8.26
SM08 29.64 4.48 0.50 0.00 0.33 2.86 0.34 0.00 0.44 34.12
SM09 7.32 4.84 0.09 0.67 0.56 2.86 0.44 0.00 0.22 12.16
SM10 7.68 4.85 0.89 0.00 0.78 2.50 0.40 0.00 0.28 12.53
SM11 6.07 4.87 1.33 0.89 0.44 1.79 0.08 0.00 0.34 10.94
SM12 3.21 6.04 0.19 1.33 0.08 2.50 1.78 0.00 0.17 9.26
SU01 25.00 6.22 1.94 0.00 0.39 2.95 0.44 0.00 0.50 31.22
SU02 28.57 12.15 7.51 0.44 0.67 2.86 0.23 0.00 0.44 40.72
35
2/1/2012
Appendix C ‐ Monitoring Results Trash Characterization Volumes (gallons)
Event 2 (September 2011)
Trash Types
Recyclable
Styrofoam
BASMAA Total Trash Beverage Plastic Grand
Food and Other
Site ID Debris Total Containers Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous Total
Beverage Plastic
(CRV‐ Bags
Ware
labeled)
BE01 11.07 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.11 11.57
BK01 2.68 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.22 0.00 0.11 3.46
BK02 15.36 4.67 0.00 0.67 0.00 2.00 1.67 0.00 0.33 20.02
BK03 11.25 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.33 1.22 0.03 0.08 14.02
BK04 6.61 1.89 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.56 0.89 0.00 0.22 8.50
BR01 5.18 2.19 0.00 0.56 0.05 0.67 0.67 0.03 0.22 7.36
BR02 11.43 2.41 0.13 0.00 0.44 1.44 0.22 0.00 0.17 13.84
BR03 6.43 0.92 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.33 0.00 0.11 7.35
BR04 6.43 3.09 0.09 0.33 1.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 9.52
DN01 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
DN02 10.89 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.22 0.00 0.10 11.66
DN03 12.68 1.89 0.00 0.22 0.00 1.33 0.22 0.00 0.11 14.57
DN04 6.25 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.33 0.03 0.00 0.03 6.66
FR01 2.14 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.03 0.03 2.47
FR02 10.54 0.86 0.00 0.11 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.03 11.39
FR03 3.39 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.17 4.34
FR04 6.61 2.89 0.00 0.00 0.11 2.50 0.06 0.00 0.22 9.50
LV01 16.61 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.04 16.78
LV02 2.14 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.22 0.11 0.00 2.92
OK01 1.96 2.68 0.00 0.67 0.22 1.33 0.22 0.01 0.22 4.64
OK02 10.36 8.17 0.05 1.00 1.00 2.50 3.39 0.00 0.22 18.52
OK03 3.57 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.44 0.22 0.00 0.05 4.34
OK04 5.71 3.72 0.00 0.22 0.17 1.44 1.67 0.00 0.22 9.44
OR01 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.50
36
2/1/2012
Trash Types
Recyclable
Styrofoam
BASMAA Total Trash Beverage Plastic Grand
Food and Other
Site ID Debris Total Containers Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous Total
Beverage Plastic
(CRV‐ Bags
Ware
labeled)
OR02 1.61 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.05 0.00 0.03 1.90
PL01 2.32 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.44 0.11 0.05 0.22 3.20
PL02 3.57 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.05 3.78
RI01 30.00 42.84 0.13 4.00 3.56 25.00 9.37 0.00 0.78 72.84
RI02 11.07 10.12 1.34 0.67 0.22 5.00 1.44 0.00 1.44 21.19
RI03 3.93 7.15 0.68 0.22 1.33 1.78 1.78 0.03 1.33 11.08
SC01 3.21 8.74 0.00 0.22 0.78 3.75 3.39 0.04 0.56 11.95
SJ01 3.39 0.87 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.11 0.00 0.00 4.26
SJ03 3.39 2.73 0.26 0.22 0.11 1.89 0.22 0.00 0.03 6.13
SJ04 8.75 1.03 0.29 0.00 0.05 0.56 0.11 0.00 0.03 9.78
SJ05 7.68 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.00 0.00 8.01
SJ06 1.07 4.10 0.55 0.00 0.22 1.56 1.78 0.00 0.00 5.17
SJ07 3.75 2.26 0.26 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.22 0.11 0.11 6.01
SJ08 6.79 4.79 0.00 1.11 0.67 1.78 1.11 0.00 0.13 11.58
SJ09 0.71 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.86
SJ10 0.71 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.83
SJ11 5.18 2.56 0.00 0.22 0.67 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.44 7.73
SJ12 1.43 3.38 0.00 0.44 0.03 1.11 0.22 0.36 1.22 4.81
SJ13 6.96 4.56 0.00 0.00 0.56 2.00 1.56 0.00 0.44 11.52
SJ14 6.07 3.03 0.09 0.22 0.05 0.67 0.22 0.00 1.78 9.10
SJ15 0.89 3.00 0.00 0.56 0.33 1.67 0.33 0.00 0.11 3.89
SJ16 1.07 6.73 0.36 0.11 0.89 3.93 0.78 0.00 0.67 7.80
SJ17 1.61 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.22 1.11 0.22 0.00 0.05 3.21
SJ19 4.11 3.07 0.18 0.00 0.67 0.89 1.00 0.00 0.33 7.18
SJ20 13.04 2.78 0.00 0.11 0.22 1.72 0.33 0.06 0.33 15.81
SJ21 3.04 2.48 0.37 0.00 0.11 1.56 0.22 0.00 0.22 5.51
SJ22 7.68 5.04 0.00 1.11 0.00 3.04 0.44 0.00 0.44 12.71
37
2/1/2012
Trash Types
Recyclable
Styrofoam
BASMAA Total Trash Beverage Plastic Grand
Food and Other
Site ID Debris Total Containers Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous Total
Beverage Plastic
(CRV‐ Bags
Ware
labeled)
SJ23 4.82 1.78 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.44 0.11 0.00 1.11 6.60
SJ24 1.96 2.84 0.40 0.56 0.22 0.89 0.33 0.00 0.44 4.80
SJ25 6.96 2.89 0.89 0.00 0.22 1.33 0.22 0.00 0.22 9.85
SJ26 7.32 2.35 0.00 0.44 0.00 1.78 0.08 0.00 0.05 9.67
SJ27 1.79 2.56 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.44 0.89 0.00 0.11 4.34
SJ28 5.36 2.24 0.13 0.00 0.56 1.22 0.22 0.00 0.11 7.60
SJ29 5.00 3.91 0.13 0.89 0.11 2.00 0.56 0.00 0.22 8.91
SJ30 8.21 3.30 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.22 1.89 0.00 0.08 11.51
SJ31 3.75 7.29 0.00 0.22 0.56 2.00 4.29 0.00 0.22 11.04
SJ32 6.43 1.74 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.78 0.44 0.00 0.22 8.17
SJ33 4.64 3.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.33 1.44 0.00 0.11 7.64
SJ34 3.93 1.74 0.13 0.00 0.05 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.11 5.67
SJ35 3.39 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.67 0.22 0.06 0.22 5.90
SJ36 6.96 1.38 0.00 0.22 0.44 0.56 0.05 0.00 0.11 8.35
SJ37 4.64 1.11 0.00 0.33 0.11 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.11 5.75
SJ38 6.25 9.92 0.00 1.11 0.22 3.04 5.00 0.00 0.56 16.17
SJ39 2.14 1.78 0.00 0.67 0.11 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.11 3.92
SJ40 1.25 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.44 1.22 0.00 0.05 3.08
SJ41 2.68 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70
SJ42 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.04
SJ43 3.04 0.48 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.11 0.00 0.05 3.51
SJ44 1.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.17
SJ46 1.43 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.87
SJ47 3.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.93
SJ48 3.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.93
SJ49 3.21 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.26
SJ50 3.21 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.44
38
2/1/2012
Trash Types
Recyclable
Styrofoam
BASMAA Total Trash Beverage Plastic Grand
Food and Other
Site ID Debris Total Containers Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous Total
Beverage Plastic
(CRV‐ Bags
Ware
labeled)
SJ51 8.57 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.11 8.91
SJ52 2.50 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.11 3.28
SJ53 2.86 2.22 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.67 0.33 0.00 0.11 5.08
SJ54 4.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.82
SJ55 0.71 1.28 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.33 0.00 0.44 2.00
SJ56 6.43 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.44 0.33 0.00 0.44 8.76
SJ57 3.57 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.68
SJ58 2.50 1.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.67 0.22 0.00 0.00 3.50
SJ59 4.11 1.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.11
SJ60 1.96 0.28 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.24
SJ61 4.29 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.03 4.53
SJ62 2.86 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.11 3.52
SJ64 4.11 2.34 0.23 0.11 0.00 1.11 0.78 0.00 0.11 6.44
SJ65 5.36 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25
SJ66 1.79 0.33 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 2.12
SJ67 4.29 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.33 0.78 0.00 0.09 5.51
SJ68 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
SJ69 1.79 1.11 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90
SJ70 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.32
SJ71 2.50 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 2.61
SJ72 5.71 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.11 0.00 0.00 6.60
SJ73 5.71 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 6.95
SJ74 5.00 1.15 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.44 0.11 0.00 0.11 6.15
SJ75 4.82 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 5.40
SJ76 5.36 3.62 0.40 0.33 1.00 1.78 0.11 0.00 0.00 8.98
SL01 4.64 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.50 0.56 0.00 0.11 5.86
SL02 4.82 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.11 6.49
39
2/1/2012
Trash Types
Recyclable
Styrofoam
BASMAA Total Trash Beverage Plastic Grand
Food and Other
Site ID Debris Total Containers Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous Total
Beverage Plastic
(CRV‐ Bags
Ware
labeled)
SL03 11.79 3.28 0.00 0.33 0.33 1.67 0.78 0.00 0.17 15.06
SL04 10.89 2.36 0.00 0.22 0.22 1.33 0.33 0.03 0.22 13.25
SL05 1.43 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.11 0.00 0.05 2.70
SL06 11.79 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.22 1.00 0.00 0.06 14.11
SL07 6.96 1.59 0.09 0.78 0.00 0.44 0.22 0.00 0.05 8.55
SL08 5.36 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.52
SL09 8.39 4.13 0.13 0.89 0.00 1.22 1.67 0.00 0.22 12.52
SL10 6.43 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.33 0.00 0.11 7.32
SL11 9.11 2.05 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.56 1.11 0.00 0.05 11.16
SL12 3.04 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.67 0.56 0.00 0.03 4.39
SL13 25.71 2.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.33 0.03 0.17 28.24
SL14 3.75 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.67 0.44 0.00 0.22 5.13
SL15 4.11 2.78 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 2.00 0.00 0.11 6.88
SL16 1.43 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.92
SL17 0.54 0.23 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.76
SL18 8.57 8.06 0.00 0.67 0.44 1.00 1.33 0.00 4.62 16.63
SL19 10.18 2.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.11 0.78 0.03 0.05 12.19
SL20 9.46 2.44 0.00 0.33 0.11 1.33 0.56 0.00 0.11 11.91
SL21 4.29 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.33 0.00 0.09 4.88
SL22 1.96 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.78 2.00 0.00 0.22 4.99
SL23 13.66 2.25 0.13 0.00 0.04 1.67 0.17 0.03 0.22 15.91
SL24 5.18 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.22 0.22 0.00 0.33 7.07
SL25 18.75 6.67 0.26 0.78 1.22 3.04 1.00 0.04 0.33 25.42
SM01 10.36 2.72 0.00 0.11 0.05 1.78 0.67 0.00 0.11 13.07
SM02 20.54 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.11 0.00 0.03 21.12
SM03 8.93 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.22 0.00 0.03 9.51
SM04 4.64 0.70 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.04 5.35
40
2/1/2012
Trash Types
Recyclable
Styrofoam
BASMAA Total Trash Beverage Plastic Grand
Food and Other
Site ID Debris Total Containers Grocery Paper Metal Miscellaneous Total
Beverage Plastic
(CRV‐ Bags
Ware
labeled)
SM05 18.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.28 0.06 0.00 0.00 18.54
SM06 11.96 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.03 0.00 0.00 12.54
SM07 8.21 7.65 0.20 0.89 1.67 2.68 1.67 0.00 0.56 15.87
SM08 2.32 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.78 0.17 0.00 0.67 3.96
SM09 9.29 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.68
SM10 5.71 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.11 6.27
SM11 16.25 0.98 0.00 0.22 0.05 0.22 0.44 0.00 0.04 17.23
SM12 20.89 3.00 0.00 0.33 0.22 2.06 0.17 0.00 0.22 23.89
SP01 24.11 18.27 0.33 1.11 0.89 6.06 8.21 0.00 1.67 42.38
SU01 4.82 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.93
SU02 11.43 3.23 0.23 0.56 0.00 1.33 0.22 0.11 0.78 14.65
SU03 19.64 4.20 0.31 0.78 0.11 1.89 0.78 0.11 0.22 23.84
SU04 16.07 2.13 0.13 0.44 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.22 18.20
WC01 26.34 1.86 0.00 0.22 0.03 0.61 0.33 0.00 0.67 28.20
WC02 9.11 0.88 0.25 0.22 0.00 0.33 0.03 0.03 0.03 9.99
WC03 2.32 1.14 0.00 0.22 0.11 0.44 0.33 0.00 0.03 3.46
WC04 28.04 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.04 28.36
41
2/1/2012
Trash Load Reduction Tracking
Method
Assessing the Progress of San Francisco Bay Area MS4s
Towards Stormwater Trash Load Reduction Goals
Technical Report (Version 1.0)
Submitted in Compliance with Provision C.10.a(ii) of Order R2‐2009‐0074
Prepared for:
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA)
Prepared by:
EOA, Inc.
1410 Jackson Street
Oakland, CA 94612
February 1, 2012
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. III
.
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ III
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................................ V
TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. VI
.
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 TRASH LOAD REDUCTION TRACKING METHOD SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 APPLICABLE TRASH CONTROL MEASURES ..................................................................................................................
2
1.3 BASELINE TRASH GENERATION RATES PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 3
1.4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF TECHNICAL REPORT .............................................................................................................
3
1.5 MEMORANDUM ORGANIZATION .............................................................................................................................
3
2.0 METHODS OVERVIEW AND TRACKING PROCESS ....................................................................................... 4
2.1. METHODS OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................
4
2.2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 4
2.3. LOAD REDUCTION CALCULATION PROCESS ................................................................................................................ 6
Step #1: Existing Enhanced Street Sweeping ................................................................................................... 7
Step #2: Trash Generation Reduction Control Measures ................................................................................
. 7
Step #3: On‐land Interception Control Measures ............................................................................................ 7
Step #4: Control Measures that Intercept Trash in the MS4 ........................................................................... 8
Step #5: Control Measures that Intercept Trash in Waterways ...................................................................... 8
Step #6: Comparison to Baseline Trash Load .................................................................................................. 8
3.0 LOADS REDUCED CREDIT FACT SHEETS .................................................................................................... 0
1
CR‐1: Single‐use Carryout Plastic Bag Policies (Area‐wide) .................................................................................... 1
1
CR‐2: Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Policies (Area‐wide) .......................................................................... 4 1
CR‐3: Public Education and Outreach Programs (Area‐wide) ................................................................................ 6
. 1
CR‐4: Reduction of Trash from Uncovered Loads (Area‐wide) ............................................................................... 9 1
CR‐5: Anti‐Littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement (Area‐wide)....................................................................... 1 2
CR‐6: Improved Trash Bin/Container Management (Area‐wide) ........................................................................... 3 2
CR‐7: Single‐Use Food and Beverage Ware Ordinances (Area‐wide) ..................................................................... 5 2
4.0 LOADS REDUCED QUANTIFICATION FACT SHEETS .................................................................................... 8
2
QF‐1: On‐land Trash Cleanups (Area‐wide) ............................................................................................................ 9
2
QF‐2: Enhanced Street Sweeping (Area‐specific) ................................................................................................... 2
3
QF‐3: Partial‐Capture Treatment Devices (Area‐wide & Area‐specific) ................................................................. 9
. 3
QF‐4: Enhanced Storm Drain Inlet Maintenance (Area‐specific) ............................................................................ 3 4
QF‐5: Full‐Capture Treatment Devices (Area‐Specific) ........................................................................................... 5 4
QF‐6: Creek/Channel/Shoreline Cleanups (Volunteer and/or Municipal)(Area‐wide) ............................................ 8 4
5.0 LOAD REDUCTION REPORTING AND VERIFICATION .................................................................................. 1
5
5.1 ANNUAL REPORTING ........................................................................................................................................... 1
5
5.2 VERIFICATION OF TRASH LOAD REDUCTIONS ............................................................................................................ 1 5
6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 2
. 5
ii
2/1/12
Technical Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Trash control measures for which load reduction credits or load reduction quantification
.
formulas were developed to track progress towards trash load reduction goals. ................................ 2
Table 3.1. Trash control measure for which load reduction credits were developed to track progress
towards trash load reduction goals ...................................................................................................... 10
Table CR‐1.1. Summary of single‐use carryout plastic bag ordinance load reduction credits ................................... 12
Table CR‐2.1. Summary of polystyrene foam food service ware ordinance load reduction credits .......................... 15
Table CR‐3.1. Minimum number of school‐age children/youth outreach events by Permittee population. ............ 17
Table CR‐3.2. Minimum number of community outreach events by Permittee population ..................................... 17
Table CR‐3.3. Summary of trash load reduction credits for public education and outreach program control
measures .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Table CR‐4.1. Summary of trash load reduction credits for activities to reduce trash from uncovered loads .......... 20
Table CR‐5.1. Summary of trash load reduction credits for implementing anti‐littering and illegal dumping
enforcement activities .......................................................................................................................... 22
Table CR‐6.1. Summary of trash load reduction credits for improved trash bin/container management
control measures .................................................................................................................................. 24
Table CR‐7.1. Summary of trash reduction credits for adopting and enforcing single‐use food and
beverage ware reduction ordinances ................................................................................................... 26
Table 4.1. Trash control measure for which load reduction quantification formulas were developed to
track progress towards trash load reduction goals .............................................................................. 28
Table QF‐2.1. Street sweeping effectiveness (H) equations during dry and wet seasons and parking and no
parking enforcement scenarios (based on Figure QF‐2.1) ................................................................... 35
Table QF‐4.1 Percent increase above baseline in volume removed from storm drain inlets due to an
increase in storm drain inlet maintenance ........................................................................................... 44
Table QF‐5.1. Devices recognized by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board as
meeting the trash full‐capture definition ............................................................................................. 46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Trash Load Reduction Calculation Process and Outputs ...................................................................... 9
Figure QF‐2.1. Street sweeping effectiveness curve based on sweeping frequency, storm frequency and
level of parking enforcement (Adapted from Armitage 2001) ........................................................... 34
iii
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
BID Business Improvement District
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association
CDS Continuous Deflection Separator
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CY Cubic Yards
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GIS Geographic Information System
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit for the San Francisco Bay Area
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NGO Non‐Governmental Organization
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Q Flow
SFRWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Water Board San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
iv
2/1/12
Technical Report
PREFACE
This Technical Report was prepared under the guidance of cities, towns, counties and flood control
districts (i.e., Permittees) subject to requirements in Provision C.10.a.i of the Municipal Regional
Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) for Phase I communities in the San Francisco Bay (Order R2‐2009‐
0074). The tracking methods included within are intended to establish a consistent framework for
Permittees to track progress towards trash load reduction goals included in the MRP. The use of this
document is done so under the discretion of each Permittee. Based on the experiences of Permittees in
implementing trash control measures, Permittees may chose to supplement the methods described in
this Technical Report with additional credits and quantifications to account for load reductions
associated with enhanced control measure implementation. Additionally, based on experiences
implementing trash control measures and assessing effectiveness, methods contained herein may be
modified overtime. Therefore, this document serves as Version 1.0 of the Trash Load Reduction Tracking
Method.
v
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
TERMINOLOGY
Area‐specific (with regard to control measures or reductions): Control measures or reductions which
are implemented or applied within defined or limited areas within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area (e.g.,
full‐capture treatment devices or enhanced street sweeping).
Area‐wide (with regard to control measures or reductions): Control measures or reductions which are
implemented or applied throughout a Permittee’s jurisdictional area (e.g., region‐wide public education
strategy).
Baseline Implementation: The level of implementation for a specific trash control measure that forms
the starting point for tracking progress toward trash load reduction.
Baseline Load: the sum of the trash loads from a Permittee’s effective loading area, adjusted for
baseline implementation of street sweeping, storm drain inlet maintenance, and pump station
maintenance.
Baseline Loading Rate: The rate (expressed as volume/acre/year) at which trash is discharged onto
effective loading areas, taking into account baseline control measure implementation.
Best Management Practice (BMP): Any activity, technology, process, operational method or measure,
or engineered system, which when implemented prevents, controls, removes, or reduces pollution. A
BMP is also referred to as a control measure.
Bypass: The intentional diversion of water and its constituents from any portion of a treatment
measure.
Conceptual Model: A model that explicitly describes and graphically represents all existing knowledge
on the sources of a pollutant, its fate and transport, and/or its effects in the ecosystem.
Conveyance System Load: The volume of trash estimated to enter the stormwater conveyance system
(e.g., storm drain inlets).
Conveyance System Loading Rates: The annual rates (volume/acre) at which trash enters a stormwater
conveyance system (e.g., storm drain inlets) from a particular land area that is associated with a specific
trash loading rate category.
Control Measure: See Best Management Practice.
Current Load: The difference between a baseline load and the load removed via existing enhanced
street sweeping.
Current Loading Rate: The rate (expressed as volume/acre/year) at which trash is discharged onto
effective loading areas, taking into account baseline control measure implementation.
Discharge: A release or flow of stormwater or other substance from a stormwater conveyance system.
Effectiveness (with regard to Control Measures): A measure of how well a control measure reduces
trash from entering the MS4.
Enhanced (with regard to control measures): New or expanded control measures that have been
implemented after the effective date of the MRP (i.e., December 1, 2009).
Existing Enhanced Street Sweeping: Street sweeping conducted by a Permittee on February 1, 2012 at a
frequency greater than the baseline street sweeping ceiling.
vi
2/1/12
Technical Report
Full‐Capture Device: A single device or series of devices that can trap all particles retained by a 5 mm
mesh screen, and has a treatment capacity that exceeds the peak flow rate resulting from a one‐year,
one‐hour storm in the subdrainage area treated by the device.
Generated Load: The load (volume) of trash that is available to an MS4 under a no street sweeping,
storm drain inlet and pump station maintenance scenario.
Generation Rate: The rate (expressed as volume/acre/year) for specific land areas at which trash is
available to an MS4 under a no street sweeping, storm drain inlet and pump station maintenance
scenario.
Geographical Information System (GIS): A system designed to capture, store, analyze, manage, and
display all forms of geographically referenced data. GIS is the merging of cartography, statistical analysis,
and database technology.
Interception (with regard to control measures): The process of removing trash from proceeding within
an area‐specific or area‐wide control measure.
Litter: As defined by California Code Section 68055.1(g), litter means all improperly discarded waste
material, including, but not limited to, convenience food, beverage, and other product packages or
containers constructed of steel, aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and other natural and synthetic
materials, thrown or deposited on the lands and water.
Load Reduction: The estimated or quantified decrease in the amount of trash discharged from a
stormwater conveyance system or removed from a receiving water.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): "a conveyance or system of conveyances (including
roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man‐made
channels, or storm drains): (i) Owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district,
association, or other public body (created to or pursuant to state law) including special districts under
state law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian
tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency
under section 208 of the Clean Water Act that discharges into waters of the United States. (ii) Designed
or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; (iii) Which is not a combined sewer; and (iv) Which is not
part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2." (40 CFR 122.26(b)(8))
Partial‐capture Device: Treatment devices that have not been recognized as full‐capture devices by the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, but capture trash (e.g., trash booms or retractable curb inlet
screens). Partial‐capture devices may be similar to full‐capture devices, but do not meet the full‐capture
definition due to engineering challenges, or they may be completely different types of devices.
Receiving Waters: Natural water bodies (e.g., creeks, lakes, bays, estuaries)
Stormwater: Runoff from roofs, roads and other surfaces that is generated from rainfall and snow
events and flows into a stormwater conveyance system.
Storm Drain Inlet: Part of the stormwater conveyance system where surface runoff enters the
underground conveyance system. Includes side inlets located adjacent to curbs and grate inlets located
on the surface of a street or parking lot.
Storm Drain Insert: A device (e.g., screen or basket) designed to capture trash capture within a storm
drain inlet.
Stormwater Conveyance System: Any pipe, ditch or gully, or system of pipes, ditches, or gullies, that is
owned or operated by a governmental entity and used for collecting and conveying stormwater.
vii
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Street Load: Volume of trash estimated to enter the environment and available for interception via on‐
land trash cleanups and enhanced street sweeping, following the implementation of trash generation
reduction control measures.
Street Loading Rates: The annual rates (volume/acre) at which trash enters the environment within a
land area and is available for interception via on‐land trash cleanups and enhanced street sweeping,
following the implementation of trash generation reduction control measures.
Trash: Litter (as defined by California Code Section 68055.1g), excluding sediments, sand, vegetation, oil
and grease, and exotic species, that cannot pass through a 5 mm mesh screen.
Trash Generation Reduction: The implementation of control measures which prevent or greatly reduce
the likelihood of trash from being deposited onto the urban landscape.
Trash Loading Rate Category: A specific combination of important trash generation factors (e.g., land
use, population density, economic profile) and control measures in an applicable land area that affect a
trash generation rate.
Urban Runoff: All flows within a stormwater conveyance system which consist of stormwater (wet
weather flows) and non‐stormwater illicit discharges (dry weather flows).
Watershed: A defined area of land that catches rain and snow; and drains or seeps into a marsh, stream,
river, lake or groundwater.
Waterway: a receiving water or manmade channel.
Waterway Load: The estimated load (volume) of trash discharge to a receiving water via an MS4.
Waterway Loading Rates: The annual rates (volume/acre/year) at which trash is discharged via an MS4.
viii
2/1/12
Technical Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit for Phase I communities in the San Francisco Bay
(Order R2‐2009‐0074), also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), became effective on
December 1, 2009. The MRP applies to 76 large, medium and small municipalities (cities, towns and
counties) and flood control agencies in the San Francisco Bay Region, collectively referred to as
Permittees. Provision C.10 of the MRP (Trash Load Reduction) requires Permittees to reduce trash from
their Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) by 40 percent before July 1, 2014.
Required submittals to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) by
February 1, 2012 under MRP provision C.10.a (Short‐ Term Plan) include:
1. A baseline trash load estimate and description of the methodology used to determine
the load level; and
2. A description of the Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method that will be used to account
for trash load reduction actions and to demonstrate progress and attainment of trash
load reduction levels.
3. A Short‐Term Trash Loading Reduction Plan that describes control measures and best
management practices that will be implemented to attain a 40 percent trash load
reduction from its MS4 by July 1, 2014;
This Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method Technical Report (Technical Report) was developed in
compliance with submittal #2. To comply with required submittals #1 and #3, each Permittee has
developed an individual Short Term Trash Loading Reduction Plan (Short‐Term Plan) using a template
developed by BASMAA to ensure consistency. Each Short‐Term Plan includes the Permittee’s current
trash baseline load estimate and descriptions of actions that will be implemented to reach a 40%
reduction in their estimated baseline trash load. Baseline trash loads were developed through the
BASMAA Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project described in Section 1.4 (BASMAA 2011a, 2011b,
2012).
1.1 Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method Summary
The trash load reduction tracking method described in this Technical Report is intended to assist
Permittees in demonstrating progress towards reaching trash load reduction goals defined in the MRP
(e.g., 40 percent). The tracking method is based on information gained through an extensive literature
review and Permittee experiences in implementing stormwater control measures in the San Francisco
Bay Area (BASMAA 2011c). The literature review was conducted to evaluate quantification methods
used by other agencies to assess control measure effectiveness or progress towards quantitative goals.
Methods to track load reductions attributable trash control measures described in this Technical Report
fall into two categories: 1) trash load reduction quantification formulas; and 2) load reduction credits.
Quantification formulas were developed for those trash control measures that were deemed feasible
and practical to quantify load reductions overtime. Load reduction credits were developed for all other
control measures included in this Technical Report. Both categories of methods assume that as new or
enhanced trash control measures are implemented by Permittees, a commensurate trash load reduction
will occur. Progress towards load reduction goals will be demonstrated through comparisons between
load reduction credits and quantifications, and established trash baseline load estimates. Additionally,
1
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
as practicable, load reductions will also be measured empirically overtime through MS4 and/or receiving
water monitoring and characterization studies (see Section 5.0).
1.2 Applicable Trash Control Measures
Permittees may choose to implement any number of trash control measures to reach MRP trash load
reduction goals. Prior to conducting the literature review, BASMAA member agencies identified a list of
trash control measures for which trash load reduction methods should be developed. This list was
developed collaboratively through the BASMAA Trash Committee, which included participation from
Permittee, stormwater program, Water Board and non‐governmental organization (NGO) staff, and is
based on: 1) the potential for Permittees to implement; 2) the availability of information required to
populate formulas and develop credits; and 3) the expected benefit of implementation. Trash control
measures for which quantification formulas and credits were developed, are described included Table
1.1.
It is important to note that in an effort to reduce trash discharged from MS4s, Permittees may choose to
implement other types of control measures that are not included on this list. If a Permittee chooses to
do so, methods specific to calculating trash load reductions for that control measure would need to be
developed. These methods may be proposed by Permittees via their Short‐Term Plans or subsequent
Annual Reports. As additional methods are developed, consideration should be given to updating this
Technical Report to incorporate these methods.
Table 1.1. Trash control measures for which load reduction credits or load reduction
quantification formulas were developed to track progress towards trash load
reduction goals.
Load Reduction Credits
Single-use Carryout Plastic Bag Ordinances
Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Ordinances
Public Education and Outreach Programs
Activities to Reduce Trash from Uncovered Loads
Anti-Littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Activities
Improved Trash Bin/Container Management Activities
Single-use Food and Beverage Ware Ordinances
Quantification Formulas
On-land Trash Cleanups (Volunteer and/or Municipal)
Enhanced Street Sweeping
Partial-Capture Treatment Devices
Enhanced Storm Drain Inlet Maintenance
Full-Capture Treatment Devices
Creek/Channel/Shoreline Cleanups (Volunteer and/or Municipal)
2
2/1/12
Technical Report
1.3 Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project
Through the approval of a BASMAA regional project, Permittees agreed to work collaboratively to
develop a regionally consistent method to establish baseline trash loads from their MS4s. The project,
also known as the BASMAA Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project assisted Permittees in establishing a
baseline by which to demonstrate progress towards MRP trash load reduction goals (e.g., 40 percent).
The project was intended to provide a scientifically‐sound method for developing trash generation rates
that can be adjusted, based on Permittee/site specific conditions; and used to develop baseline loading
rates and loads. Baseline loads form the reference point for comparing trash load reductions achieved
through control measure implementation.
Trash generation rates are estimates of trash loads (volumes) per unit area and are fully described in
BASMAA (2012a). Generation rates are based on factors that significantly affect trash generation (e.g.,
land use) in the urbanized watersheds of the San Francisco Bay area. The method used to establish
baseline trash loads for each Permittee builds off “lessons learned” from previous trash loading studies
conducted in urban areas (Allison and Chiew 1995; Allison et al. 1998; Armitage et al. 1998; Armitage
and Rooseboom 2000; Lippner et al. 2001; Armitage 2003; Kim et al. 2004; County of Los Angeles 2002,
2004a, 2004b; Armitage 2007). It uses the conceptual model presented in the BASMAA Sampling and
Analysis Plan (BASMAA 2011b), which is based off of the results of the studies cited above and described
by BASMAA (2011a). Baseline trash loading rates were developed through the quantification and
characterization of trash captured in Water Board recognized full‐capture treatment devices installed in
the San Francisco Bay area.
1.4 Purpose and Scope of Technical Report
Methodologies presented in this Technical Report should be considered preliminary and are subject to
revision based on additional information and implementation experiences. The primary purpose of this
Technical Report is to assist Permittees in complying with Permit Provision C.10.a.ii of the MRP.
Additionally, information and methods described in this report:
Provide a preliminary trash load reduction tracking method that is consistent with concepts
incorporated into the Trash Baseline Generation Rates Project and avoids double‐counting of
water quality benefits expected from the implementation of specific control measures;
Provide initial concepts of relative water quality benefits associated with specific trash control
measures, which can assist Permittees in directing control measure implementation and be
improved upon over time through Permittee experiences with implementation; and,
Assist Permittees and other stakeholders in identifying data needs associated with load
reduction quantification and crediting (i.e., identification of information needed to populate or
formulas and credits).
1.5 Memorandum Organization
This Technical Report is organized into the following sections:
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Methods Overview and Tracking Process
Section 3: Loads Reduced Credit Fact Sheets
Section 4: Loads Reduced Quantification Fact Sheets
Section 5: Empirical Load Reduction Measurements
Section 6: References
3
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
2.0 METHODS OVERVIEW AND TRACKING PROCESS
This section provides an overview of the trash load reduction tracking methods described in Sections 3.0
and 4.0. The overview describes the guiding principles and key assumptions used to develop these
methods. It also describes the process and steps that Permittees will take to calculate trash load
reductions associated with control measures and demonstrate progress towards trash load reduction
goals.
2.1. Methods Overview
The primary goal of the tracking methods development project was to assist Permittees in developing a
method to demonstrate progress toward load reduction goals required by the MRP. To form a
foundation based on existing knowledge base, a considerable amount of information on the
demonstrated effectiveness of trash controls measures and trash load reduction tracking was reviewed
and summarized by BASMAA (2011c). The results of the literature review were presented, reviewed and
discussed via the BASMAA Trash Committee, which includes participation by Permittees, Water Board
and NGO staff. The information gained through this review forms the foundation for tracking methods,
formulas and credits described in this technical report.
As a secondary goal, the project also aimed to create a forum for dialogue among interested
stakeholders to discuss their perspectives on the most effective and ineffective ways to reduce trash
discharged from MS4s. To the extent possible, the methods described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 attempts
to incorporate these perspectives and prioritize the implementation of control measures that
stakeholders generally feel are the most effective in reducing trash. This is most pertinent to control
measures that have load reduction “credits," where effectiveness data are lacking or load reductions are
difficult to quantify.
2.2. Guiding Principles and Assumptions
Based on the results of the literature review and discussions with Permittees, Water Board staff and
participating NGOs, trash load reductions resulting from the implementation of specific control
measures can be quantified and credited in many ways. To better understand the thought process used
to develop quantification formulas and load reduction credits presented in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, the
following guiding principles and assumptions were used in the development of methods described
below.
Need for a Combination of Quantification Formulas and Credits – Based on the results of the
literature review and considerable discussions, stakeholder preference was to quantify trash
load reductions associated with the enhanced implementation of specific control measures.
Additionally, stakeholders agreed that the results of quantifications should ideally have a high
degree of certainty that the trash load reduction actually takes place. For some control
measures, preliminary quantification of load reductions is possible based on existing data
collection schemes and control measure effectiveness values identified during the literature
review. For other control measures, stakeholders agreed that load reduction quantification is
either infeasible or impractical, and other tracking methods (i.e., credits) should be pursued.
Therefore, a combination of trash load reduction quantification formulas and credits are used to
demonstrate trash load reductions attributable to specific control measures. For load reduction
credits, the recommended percent reductions are based on discussions among BASMAA Trash
Committee members.
4
2/1/12
Technical Report
Load Reduction Quantification is Constrained by Available Data – Only the information readily
available on the degree of control measure implementation, volume of trash removed by the
control measure, effectiveness, baseline loads (if available) and loads reduced can be used to
develop quantification formulas and track annual load reductions. In some cases, information is
very limited and assumptions have to be made. Although assumptions create uncertainties in
load reduction calculations, if stated clearly and transparently, assumptions can be tested and
revised accordingly as methods evolve.
Maximize Simplicity in Quantification Formulas – As a general principle when creating the loads
reduced formulas presented in section 4.0, the amount of information that Permittees are
required to track as inputs to formulas was considered. In some cases, data that Permittees or
stormwater programs will need to track and input into formulas consists of information already
collected and submitted to the Water Board as part of their Annual Reports. In other cases,
additional information tracked by other public agencies or private entities (e.g., volunteer
groups) may need to be obtained to provide a complete picture of loads reduced from urban
stormwater runoff during a given year. In limited cases, Permittees will have to begin tracking
data needed to populate formulas. Specific control measures in which Permittees should begin
tracking or collecting data from others are identified in fact sheets presented in Section 4.0.
Baseline vs. New and Enhanced Control Measures – In most cases, Permittees may only count
trash loads reduced that are associated with the implementation of new or enhanced control
measures. As a general rule, control measures that were implemented prior to the MRP
effective date are considered baseline and associated load reductions are included in each
Permittee’s baseline load. That said, to avoid penalizing early implementers, load reductions
associated with some control measures (e.g., full‐capture treatment devices, polystyrene foam
food ware bans, and single‐use carryout plastic grocery ordinances) implemented prior to the
MRP effective date1 can be used towards trash load reduction goals. The definition of “baseline
implementation” is included in the fact sheets for each control measure presented in Sections
3.0 and 4.0.
Permittee Jurisdictional Areas – Consistent with the BASMAA Baseline Trash Generation Rates
Project, Permittees will likely be responsible for reducing loads to their MS4 that originate from
public or private properties that do not have or are not anticipated to have waste discharge
requirements (WDRs). As such, quantification formulas and load reduction credits presented in
Sections. 3.0 and 4.0 include actions taken by public agencies and private entities (without
WDRs) that are within their jurisdictional boundaries. In certain cases, Permittees may receive
loads reduced credit for the countywide implementation of certain control measures since they
directly impact trash loads across jurisdictional areas. These measures include certain public
education and outreach programs. Control measures implemented directly by California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and other state agencies are not attributable to load
reduction tracking methods described in this Technical Report.
No Double‐Counting – In some cases, Permittees may be implementing multiple control
measures within the same geographical area. In these instances, the trash loads reduced by one
control measure must be accounted for in the trash loads reduction quantification/crediting
method applied to the other control measure. For example, a Permittee chooses to implement
enhanced street sweeping in areas also served by full‐capture treatment devices. In this
scenario, the volume of trash reduced from implementing enhanced street sweeping cannot
also be claimed for implementing full‐capture treatment devices. Safeguards to prohibit
1
December 1, 2009.
5
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Permittees from doing so are incorporated into the Load Reduction Calculation Process
described in the next section. The goal is to avoid double‐counting.
Geographical Uniformity – Conditions vary among the various geographical areas that
contribute trash to local creeks and San Francisco Bay. Thus, projecting results obtained by
studies conducted at specific locations may not be representative of all areas. As a practical
matter, however, one must assume that projections to the whole watershed, based on area,
land use, or other important factors identified in the BASMAA Baseline Trash Generation Rates
Project are adequate for the development of the proposed methods. As data are collected to
populate formulas presented in Section 4.0, considerations should be given to the spatial
representativeness of data. As a result, data should be disaggregated or aggregated, as needed.
2.3. Load Reduction Calculation Process
Using the guiding principles and assumptions described in the previous section, a stepwise process for
calculating trash load reductions was developed and is presented in this section (Figure 2‐1). The
process takes into account the trash generation and transport process; and at what point a trash control
measure prevents trash generation, intercepts trash in the environment prior to reaching a water body,
or removes trash that has reached a water body. In doing so, it also avoids double‐counting of load
reductions.
A key component of the trash load reduction tracking method is the development of Permittee‐specific
baseline trash loading rates that were used to establish baseline trash loads. Baseline trash loading rates
will be adjusted downward based on trash load reductions applicable to enhanced/new control
measures using the following process:
Step #1: Existing Enhanced Street Sweeping
Step#2: Trash Generation Reduction
Step #3: On‐land Interception
Step #4: Trash Interception in the Stormwater Conveyance System
Step #5: Trash Interception in Waterways
Step #6: Comparison to Baseline Trash Load
Reductions calculated in Steps 2 and 5 are assumed to be implemented at a constant rate on an “area‐
wide” basis. For example, if a new region‐wide public education strategy is implemented within the San
Francisco Bay area, all Permittees can apply load reduction credits associated with this control measure.
These area‐wide load reduction credits are not site‐specific and therefore load reductions are applied to
entire effective loading area within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area. In contrast, Steps 1, 3 and 4 are
“area‐specific” reductions that only apply to specific areas within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area. Area‐
specific control measures include full‐capture treatment devices and enhanced street sweeping. Area‐
specific reductions may require the use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to calculate.
Reductions are generally applied in the sequence as presented in Figure 2‐1 and described below,
although some reductions may be applied “in‐parallel” and calculated during the same sub‐step in the
process.
6
2/1/12
Technical Report
Step #1: Existing Enhanced Street Sweeping
Trash load reductions due to existing enhanced street sweeping implemented prior to the effective date
of the MRP and conducted at levels above baseline levels are not incorporated into each Permittee’s
trash baseline load. Therefore, load reductions associated with existing enhanced are accounted for
first in the trash load reduction calculation process. Existing enhanced street sweeping includes street
sweeping conducted at a frequency greater than 1x/week for streets within retail land use areas or
greater than 2x/month for streets in all other land use areas. The result of adjustments made to trash
baseline loads due to the implementation of existing enhanced street sweeping is a set of current
baseline loading rates and a current baseline load.
Step #2: Trash Generation Reduction Control Measures
Trash generation reduction control measures prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of trash from
being deposited onto the urban landscape. They include the following area‐wide control measures:
CR‐1: Single‐Use Carryout Plastic Bag Ordinances
CR‐2: Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Ordinances
CR‐3: Public Education and Outreach Programs
CR‐4: Reduction of Trash from Uncovered Loads
CR‐5: Anti‐Littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement
CR‐6: Improved Trash Bin/Container Management
CR‐7: Single‐Use Food and Beverage Ware Ordinances
Load reductions associated with trash generation reduction control measures are applied on an area‐
wide basis.2 Therefore, reductions in current baseline loading rates are adjusted uniformly based on the
implementation of the control measure and the associated credit claimed.
Baseline loading rate adjustments for all generation reduction controls measures implemented may be
applied in‐parallel, but should be applied prior to calculating on‐land interception measures discussed in
Step #3. The result of adjustments to trash baseline loading rates due to the implementation of these
enhanced control measures will be a set of street loading rates. The street load is the volume of trash
estimated to enter the environment and available for transport to the MS4 if not intercepted via on‐land
control measures described in Step #3.
Step #3: On‐land Interception Control Measures
Once trash enters the environment, it may be intercepted and removed through the following control
measures prior to reaching the stormwater conveyance system:
QF‐1: On‐land Trash Cleanups (Volunteer and/or Municipal) (Area‐wide)
QF‐2: Enhanced Street Sweeping (Area‐specific)
Since on‐land trash cleanups can affect the amount of trash available to street sweepers, load
reductions associated with their implementation will be quantified first, followed by street sweeping
enhancements. On‐land trash cleanups will be applied as an area‐wide reduction and all effective
2
The only exception to this statement are load reductions associated with the establishment of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) or
equivalent, which are specific to geographic areas and considered “area‐specific”.
7
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
loading rates will be adjusted equally. Enhanced street sweeping, however, is an area‐specific control
measure and only those effective loading rates associated with areas receiving enhancements will be
adjusted. Due to the spatial nature of enhanced street sweeping, GIS may be needed to conduct this
step.
The result of adjustments to effective loading rates due to the implementation of these enhanced
control measures will be a set of conveyance system loading rates. The conveyance load is the volume
of trash estimated to enter the stormwater conveyance system (e.g., storm drain inlets).
Step #4: Control Measures that Intercept Trash in the MS4
Control measures that intercept trash in the stormwater conveyance system are area‐specific.
Therefore, they only apply to land areas and associated trash loads reduced. Conveyance system loading
rates developed as a result of Step #3 should be adjusted in‐parallel for the following control measures:
QF‐3a: Partial‐capture Treatment Device: Curb Inlet Screens (Area‐specific)
QF‐3b: Partial‐capture Treatment Device: Stormwater Pump Station Trash Racks Enhancements
(Area‐specific)
QF‐4: Enhanced Storm Drain Inlet Maintenance (Area‐specific)
QF‐5: Full‐Capture Treatment Devices (Area‐specific)
Load reductions for these control measures are calculated in‐parallel because they are applied to
independent geographical areas. Reductions from all control measures described in this step are area‐
specific and may require the use of GIS to calculate a set of waterway loading rates. Once waterway
loading rates have been determined, a waterway load will be developed and used as a starting point for
calculating load reductions associated with trash interception in waterways discussed in Step #5.
Step #5: Control Measures that Intercept Trash in Waterways
The load of trash that passes through the stormwater conveyance system without being intercepted
may still be removed through interception in waterways. There are two control measures associated
with interception in waterways:
QF‐3c: Partial‐capture Treatment Device: Litter Booms/Curtains (Area‐wide)
QF‐7: Creek/Channel/Shoreline Cleanups (Volunteer and/or Municipal) (Area‐wide)
As these control measures are implemented, load reduction estimates can be calculated in‐parallel for
these two measures.
Step #6: Comparison to Baseline Trash Load
Applying the four steps described in the processes above will provide an estimated trash load (volume)
remaining after trash control measures are implemented. As depicted in the following equation, the
relative percent difference between the baseline load and the load remaining after control measures are
implemented is the percent reduction that will be used to assess progress towards MRP trash load
reduction goals.
Baseline Load – Remaining Load
•100 = % Reduction
Baseline Load
8
2/1/12
Technical Report
Figure 2.1. Trash Load Reduction Calculation Process and Outputs
9
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
3.0 LOADS REDUCED CREDIT FACT SHEETS
This section includes a series of fact sheets that describe trash load reduction credits for control
measures that were deemed as infeasible or impractical to quantify at this time. Fact sheets presented
in this section are listed in Table 3.1. Trash load reduction credits were developed based on information
reviewed and summarized in BASMAA (2011c); and discussions between stakeholders at BASMAA Trash
Committee meetings and Permittee meetings and communications. Each fact sheet in this section
includes: 1) an introduction; 2) summary of applicable control measures; 3) load reduction crediting
method; and 4) references used to develop the method.
Table 3.1. Trash control measure for which load reduction credits were developed to track progress towards trash load reduction goals.
Fact Sheet
Control Measure Description
Number
CR-1 Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Area-wide credit that is based on the adoption of local, countywide
ordinances or implementation of statewide actions that prohibit or
significantly reduce the distribution of single-use plastic carryout bags.
Additional credit is also available for the implementation of fees for all other
types of single-use carryout bags (paper et al.).
CR-2 Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Area-wide credit based on the adoption of local, countywide ordinances or
Ordinance implementation of statewide actions that reduce the distribution of
polystyrene foam food ware by vendors. Prohibitions can be implemented at
two tiers: Permittee-owned properties/events and at all food service vendors.
Control measures must include an active enforcement program.
CR-3 Public Education and Outreach Programs Area-wide credit based on the implementation of advertising campaigns,
outreach to school-aged children/youth, the use of media, and community
outreach events, consistent with the MRP. Public education programs must
include an effectiveness evaluation component to evaluate an increase in the
awareness or a behavior change in the public.
CR-4 Activities to Reduce Trash from Uncovered Area-wide credit that is based on implementation of prescriptive language in
Loads Permittee trash and/or construction debris hauling contracts, and actively
working with local law enforcement to establish an enhanced enforcement
program for vehicles with uncovered loads.
CR-5 Anti-littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Area-wide credit is based on the implementation of active compliance and
Activities enforcement programs, and use of surveillance cameras and physical
barriers to reduce dumping.
CR-6 Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Area-wide credit that is based on the development and implementation of an
outreach and enforcement program to identify private properties with
inadequate trash service, implementation of a strategic plan for public area
trash containers, and the successful establishment of business improvement
districts or equivalent.
CR-7 Single-use Food and Beverage Ware Area-wide credit based on the adoption of local, countywide ordinances or
Ordinance implementation of statewide actions that reduce the distribution of single-use
food and beverage ware. Prohibitions can be implemented at multiple tiers.
Control measures must include an active enforcement program.
10
2/1/12
Technical Report
CR‐1: SINGLE‐USE CARRYOUT PLASTIC BAG POLICIES (AREA‐WIDE)
Single‐use carryout bags have been found to contribute substantially to the litter stream and to have
adverse effects on marine wildlife (United Nations 2009, CIWMB 2007, County of Los Angeles 2007). The
prevalence of litter from plastic bags in the urban environment also compromises the efficiency of
systems designed to channel stormwater runoff. Furthermore, plastic bag litter leads to increased clean‐
up costs for the Permittees and other public agencies.
As a result, Permittees have adopted municipal ordinances or equivalent policies that are designed to
significantly reduce environmental impacts of single use bags, while reducing cleanup costs. Ordinances
can vary in scope and therefore a tiered load reduction credit system based on the anticipated
magnitude of reduction was developed. For those Permittees that implement an ordinance designed to
significantly reduce the use of all types of single‐use carryout bags (e.g., plastic and paper) an additional
load reduction credit is available.
Based on the recent experience of municipalities throughout the State, the process Permittees must
undertake to enact a single‐use carryout plastic bag ordinance is very challenging due to intense scrutiny
and opposition from not only public interest groups and lobbyists, but also merchants and community
members. In most cases, most opposition groups are pressing for the development of Environmental
Impact Reports (EIRs) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Credits
presented in this fact sheet take into account the level of effort needed to enact an ordinance for single‐
use plastic bags.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measures implemented by Permittees at the local, countywide or regional scales. Methods described
are intended to demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation of one or more of
these control measures within an individual Permittee’s jurisdiction.
Adoption of an ordinance (or equivalent policy) at the local, countywide, or regional level to
prohibit or reduce the sale and/or distribution of single‐use carryout plastic bags
Implementation of statewide actions to prohibit or reduce the sale and/or distribution of single‐
use carryout plastic bags
Please Note: To avoid penalizing early implementers, applicable control measures implemented by a
Permittee prior to MRP adoption will be credited equally to control measures implemented after the
adoption of the MRP. Load reduction credits associated with the implementation of these control
measures may be used to demonstrate progress towards trash load reduction goals.
Load Reduction Credits
Permittees will receive trash load reduction credits for implementing the following control measures:
Tier 1 – Prohibit Distribution at Large Supermarkets – Adoption of a local ordinance or
implementation of a statewide or countywide action that prohibits large supermarkets from
distributing single‐use carryout plastic bags within their jurisdictional boundaries shall receive a
trash load reduction credit of 6 percent.
Tier 2 – Prohibit Distribution at Retail Establishments that Sell Packaged Foods – Adoption of a
local ordinance or implementation of a statewide or countywide action that prohibits retail
11
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
establishments that sell packaged foods from distributing single‐use carryout plastic bags within
their jurisdictional boundaries shall receive a trash load reduction credit of 8 percent.
Tier 3 – Prohibit Distribution at All Retail Establishments (with the Exception of Restaurants) –
Adoption of a local ordinance or implementation of a statewide or countywide action that
prohibits ALL retail establishments (with the exception of restaurants) from distributing single‐
use carryout plastic bags within their jurisdictional boundaries shall receive a trash load
reduction credit of 10 percent.
Additional Credit – In addition to the adoption of an ordinance (or equivalent) described in Tiers
1‐3, Permittees shall receive an additional load reduction credit for implementing a more far‐
reaching ordinance that significantly reduces the distribution and usage of ALL types of single‐
use carryout bags (plastic et al.). Actions may include banning the distribution of or charging a
fee for, single use paper bags in retail establishments.
Please Note: To receive the trash load reduction credits described above, Permittees must implement in
parallel with the ordinance/action a basic public education/outreach actions focused on reducing the
distribution of single‐use plastic bags, and enforcement actions designed to ensure compliance with the
ordinance. Additionally, if a control measure does not fit within one of the two tiers described above, a
Permittee may propose a credit commensurate with the extent of the ordinance.
A summary of trash load reductions credits available to Permittees implementing these control
measures is provided in Table CR‐1.1.
Table CR-1.1. Summary of single-use carryout plastic bag ordinance load reduction credits.
Load Reduction Credit (%)
Control Measure Ordinance Covering
Ordinance Covering
ALL Types of
Plastic Bags ONLY
Single-Use Bags
Tier 1 – Ordinance (or Equivalent) that Prohibits the Distribution of Single-use Bags at a
6 8
Subset of Retail Establishments – Large Supermarkets
Tier 2 – Ordinance (or Equivalent) that Prohibits the Distribution of Single-use Bags at
8 10
Retail Establishments that Sell Packaged Foods
Tier 3 – Ordinance (or Equivalent) that Prohibits the Distribution of Single-use Bags at all
10 12
Retail Establishments (with the exception of restaurants)
Total Possible Load Reduction Credits 10 12
References
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2007. Board Meeting Agenda, Resolution: Agenda Item 14.
Sacramento, CA. June 12, 2007.
CalRecycle. 2010. At‐Store Recycling Program: 2009 Statewide Recycling Rate for Plastic Carryout Bags. Available at
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Plastics/AtStore/AnnualRate/2009Rate.htm#Rate. Accessed June 22, 2011.
CalRecycle. 2011. Earth Day 2011: Being Green, Living Green. Available at
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/PublicEd/EarthDay/How.htm. Accessed March 17, 2011.
City of San Jose. 2010. Environmental Impact Report: Single‐Use Carryout Bag Ordinance File No. PP09‐194 SCH #2009102095.
12
2/1/12
Technical Report
County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division. 2007. An Overview of Carryout Bags in
Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Alhambra, CA.
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08‐2007.pdf. August 2007.
United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at
http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_A_Global_Challenge.pdf .April 2009.
13
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
CR‐2: POLYSTYRENE FOAM FOOD SERVICE WARE POLICIES (AREA‐WIDE)
Polystyrene foam is used as food ware in the food service industry. According to the USEPA (2002),
floatable debris in waterways, such as products made of polystyrene, is persistent in the environment
and has physical properties that can have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic
environment and the economy (USEPA 2002). Because of its detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystems
and difficulty in removing once in the environment, polystyrene is a material of interest to Permittees
and stakeholders. Due to its properties, polystyrene foam used as food ware is typically not recycled.
Since 1990, over 100 government agencies within the United States, including over 20 within the San
Francisco Bay area have enacted municipal ordinances/policies prohibiting the distribution of
polystyrene foam food ware in at municipally‐sponsored events and/or retail establishments.
Ordinances vary in scope and therefore a tiered load reduction credit system based on the anticipated
magnitude of reduction was developed. For those Permittees that demonstrate a high level of
compliance with the ordinance, additional load reduction credits are available. Credits presented in this
fact sheet take into account the level of effort needed to enact an ordinance prohibiting the distribution
of polystyrene foam food ware.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measures implemented by Permittees at the local, countywide or regional scales. Methods described
are intended to demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation of one or more of
these control measures within an individual Permittee’s jurisdiction.
Ordinances or policies adopted at local or countywide level which prohibits the distribution of
polystyrene foam food ware; and/or
Statewide actions that prohibit the distribution of polystyrene foam food ware.
Please Note: To avoid penalizing early implementers, applicable control measures implemented by a
Permittee prior to MRP adoption will be credited equally to control measures implemented after the
adoption of the MRP. Load reduction credits associated with the implementation of these control
measures may be used to demonstrate progress towards trash load reduction goals.
Load Reduction Credits
Permittees will receive trash load reduction credits for implementing the following control measures:
Tier 1 – Prohibit Distribution at Permittee‐sponsored Events and Permittee‐owned Property –
Adoption of a local ordinance or implementation of actions that prohibit food vendors from
distributing polystyrene foam food ware at Permittee‐sponsored events and on Permittee‐
owned property will receive a trash load reduction credit of 2 percent.
Tier 2 –Prohibit Distribution by Food Service Vendors – Adoption of a local ordinance or
implementation of an action that prohibits food vendors from distributing polystyrene foam
food ware within their jurisdictional boundaries will receive a trash load reduction credit of 8
percent.
Please Note: To receive the trash load reduction credits described above, Permittees must implement in
parallel with the ordinance or action a public education/outreach actions focused on food service
14
2/1/12
Technical Report
vendors, and enforcement actions designed to ensure compliance with the ordinance/action.
Additionally, if a control measure does not fit within one of the two tiers described above, a Permittee
may propose a credit commensurate with the extent of the ordinance/action.
A summary of trash load reductions credits available to Permittees implementing these control
measures is provided in Table CR‐2.1.
Table CR-2.1. Summary of polystyrene foam food service ware ordinance load reduction credits.
Control Measure Load Reduction Credit (%)
Tier 1 – Ordinance (or Equivalent) that Prohibits the Distribution of Polystyrene
Foam Food Ware at Permittee-sponsored Events or on Permittee-owned 2
Property
Tier 2 – Ordinance (or Equivalent) that Prohibits the Distribution of Polystyrene
8
Foam Food Ware at all food service vendors
Total Possible Load Reduction Credits 8
References
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris. August 2002.
Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/marinedebris/upload/2006_10_6_oceans_debris_floatingdebris_debris‐final.pdf.
15
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
CR‐3: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS (AREA‐WIDE)
Permittees in the San Francisco Bay Area have implemented public education and outreach programs to
inform residents about stormwater issues related to pollutants of concern, watershed awareness and
pollution prevention. Public education and outreach efforts include developing and distributing
brochures and other print media, posting messages on websites and social networking media (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter, etc.), attending community events, and conducting media advertising. In recent
years, some municipal agencies have implemented anti‐litter campaigns to increase public awareness
about the impacts of trash on their communities and water quality, and to encourage the public to stop
littering. Additionally, consistent with Provision C.7 of the MRP, the main focus of current stormwater
public education and outreach efforts in the Bay Area are associated with trash reduction. The effects
associated with public education and outreach programs are long‐term and are partially determined by
long‐term commitments by agencies implementing these programs.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following new or enhanced urban stormwater
runoff control measures implemented by Permittees at the local, countywide or regional scales.
Applicable control measures are consistent with the requirements in MRP provision C.7. Credits
associated with these control measures are commensurate with the trash load reduction anticipated to
occur overtime.
Advertising Campaigns – Participation in or contribution to advertising campaign(s) on
trash/litter in waterways with the goal of significantly increasing overall awareness of
stormwater runoff pollution prevention messages and behavior changes in a target audience.3
Advertising campaigns must include the following attributes:
Specific anti‐littering messages for reducing litter;
A comprehensive advertising plan designed to reach the target audience; and
Pre and post‐campaign surveys which identify and quantify the audiences’ knowledge,
trends and attitudes and/or practices; and measures the overall population’s awareness of
the messages and behavior changes achieved by the campaign.
Outreach to School‐age Children or Youth – Active implementation of outreach programs (e.g.,
assemblies, presentations, etc.) designed to promote anti‐littering behavior in school‐age
children (K through 12) at an implementation level listed in Table CR‐3.1. Outreach programs
must include an evaluation component (e.g., teacher or student feedback) to determine
effectiveness.
3
A specific group of people within the target market at which the marketing message is aimed (e.g., 16‐24 year old males) (Kotler 1999)
16
2/1/12
Technical Report
Table CR-3.1. Minimum number of school-age children/youth outreach events by Permittee population.
Permittee Population # of Outreach Events
250,000 8
Media Relations (Use of Free Media) – Participation in or contribution to a media relations
campaign which uses free media/media coverage (i.e., public service announcements and free
advertising spots) focusing on litter issues (e.g., publicity of local creek/neighborhood cleanups,
outreach promoting product bans, steps initiated to alleviate trash from homeless
encampments, etc.). The media relations campaign must be designed to significantly increase
the overall awareness of anti‐litter messages and associated behavior change in target
audiences.
Community Outreach Events – Organization of and participation in focused outreach and
education programs at an implementation level listed in Table CR‐3.2 in high priority
communities where litter is prevalent. Outreach programs must include an evaluation
component (e.g., participant feedback) to determine effectiveness.
Table CR-3.2. Minimum number of community outreach events by Permittee population.
Permittee Population # of Outreach Events
250,000 8
Crediting Approach
Water quality outcomes4 associated with public education and outreach control measures are incredibly
difficult and costly to measure with confidence. Therefore, the crediting methods used for public
education and outreach control measures will be based on the documented implementation of the
control measure and attempts to measure the effectiveness of such actions through assessment. For all
public education and outreach control measures described in this fact sheet, with the exception of
4
Outcomes are the results of implementing a stormwater control measure, program element or overall program (CASQA 2007).
17
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
media relations, effectiveness assessments designed to measure increased awareness and/or behavior
change must be conducted by Permittees to claim the load reduction credits described below.
Load Reduction Credits
Permittees will receive load reduction credits presented in Table CR‐3.3 for the implementation of new
or enhanced control measures described in this fact sheet. To receive credit, control measures must be
directed at the appropriate, target audience (i.e., litterers) or potential future litterers (i.e., children).
Because public education and outreach activities typically require a significant period time to achieve
desired outcomes, a long‐term commitment by Permittees towards implementation is assumed in the
credits described in Table CR‐3.3.
Please Note: To avoid penalizing early implementers, applicable control measures implemented by a
Permittee prior to MRP adoption and continued through the term of the MRP will be credited equally to
new or enhanced control measures implemented after the adoption of the MRP. Load reduction credits
associated with the implementation of these control measures may be used to demonstrate progress
towards trash load reduction goals.
Table CR-3.3. Summary of trash load reduction credits for public education and outreach
program control measures.
Control Measures Load Reduction Credit (%)
Advertising Campaigns 3
Outreach to School-age Children or Youth 2
Media Relations (Use of free media) 1
Community Outreach Events 2
Total Possible Load Reduction Credits (%) 8
References
CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association). 2007. Municipal Stormwater Program Effectiveness Assessment Guidance.
May 2007.
Kotler, P. 1999. Kotler on Marketing: How to Create, Win, and Dominate Markets. New York: Free Press.
18
2/1/12
Technical Report
CR‐4: REDUCTION OF TRASH FROM UNCOVERED LOADS (AREA‐WIDE)
Although it is currently illegal to operate a vehicle that is improperly covered and which its’ contents
escapes5, vehicles remain an important trash source to MS4s and local waterways. Specifically, vehicles
that do not secure or cover their loads when transporting trash and debris have a high risk of
contributing trash to MS4s. Land areas that generate trash from vehicles include roads, highways (on/off
ramps, shoulders or median strips) and parking lots. To help address the dispersion of trash from
unsecured or uncovered vehicles destined for landfills and transfer stations, Permittees may require
municipally‐contracted trash haulers to cover or secure loads or work with municipal or private landfill
and transfer station operators to educate waste haulers on securing loads and/or to enhance
enforcement of existing regulations.
Applicable Control Measures
Load reduction tracking methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban
stormwater runoff control measures implemented by Permittees at the local, countywide or regional
scales. These crediting methods are intended to demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from
implementation of these control measures within an individual Permittee’s jurisdictional area.
Require Municipal Trash Haulers to Cover Loads – development and inclusion of language in a
Permittee’s hauling service contract(s) that requires contracted trash and construction debris
haulers to cover loads when transporting trash and debris to municipally or privately‐owned
landfills and transfer stations.
Implement an Enhanced Enforcement Program for Vehicles with Uncovered Loads –
Permittees actively working with local law enforcement to establish an enhanced enforcement
program for vehicles with uncovered loads. Enhanced enforcement programs may include the
following:
o Adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the transportation of trash or debris without a
cover;
o Citations and fines for vehicles spotted on roads in an individual Permittee’s
jurisdictional area with uncovered loads; or,
o Distribution of tarps for a fee to haulers or other vehicles that arrive at landfills and
transfer stations with uncovered loads. Each subsequent visit without a tarp will result
in an additional fee for a tarp, prompting haulers to bring their own tarp.
Load Reduction Credits
Permittees will receive load reduction credits presented in Table CR‐4.1 for the implementation of
control measures described in this fact sheet. Each control measure and associated credit is considered
to be mutually exclusive of the other.
5
In accordance with the California Vehicle Code Sections 23114 and 23115, it is against the law to operate a vehicle on the
highway which is improperly covered, constructed, or loaded so that any part of its contents or loads spills, drops, leaks, blows,
or otherwise escapes from the vehicle. Exempted materials include hay and straw, clear water and feathers from live birds.
Additionally, any vehicle transporting garbage, trash, or rubbish, used cans or bottles, waste papers, waste cardboard, etc. must
have the load covered to prevent any part of the load from spilling on the highway (CVC 2011). Significant fines are possible for
non‐compliance.
19
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Please Note: To avoid penalizing early implementers, applicable control measures implemented by a
Permittee prior to MRP adoption and continued in a given year of interest will be credited equally to
new or enhanced control measures implemented after the adoption of the MRP. Load reduction credits
associated with the implementation of these control measures may be used to demonstrate progress
towards trash load reduction goals.
Table CR‐4.1. Summary of trash load reduction credits for activities to reduce trash from uncovered loads.
Load Reduction Credit
Control Measure
(%)
Prescriptive Language in Municipal Contracts for Trash and Debris Haulers 1
Implementation of an Enhanced Enforcement Program for Vehicles with Uncovered Loads 4
Total Possible Load Reduction Credits (%) 5
References
CVC (California Vehicle Code). 2011. California Vehicle Code Sections 23114 and 23115.
20
2/1/12
Technical Report
CR‐5: ANTI‐LITTERING AND ILLEGAL DUMPING ENFORCEMENT (AREA‐WIDE)
Successful anti‐littering and illegal dumping enforcement activities include laws and ordinances that
prohibit littering or dumping. Laws are enforced by various municipal agency staff (e.g., police, sheriff
and public works department staff) who issue citations in response to citizen complaints or other
enforcement methods (e.g., surveillance cameras, signage and/or physical barriers installed at illegal
dumping hot spots). In some California jurisdictions, the minimum fine for littering is $500 and the
maximum penalty for highway littering is $1000 (City of San Francisco 2001). However, it is difficult to
enforce small littering events unless they are witnessed or solid proof exists linking the offender to the
litter. As a result, enforcement tends to focus on larger scale illegal dumping activities.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measure enhancements implemented by Permittees. These crediting methods are intended to
demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation within an individual Permittee’s
jurisdiction.
Anti‐Littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Program – Implementation of an active anti‐
littering and illegal dumping enforcement program in the year of interest that includes all of the
following:
o Thorough investigations of complaints received from an illegal dumping hotline;
o The implementation of enforcement procedures including citations (as warranted); and,
o The collection of evidence (e.g., names, addresses, etc.) from illegal dump sites (i.e., public
and private) in an attempt to identify offenders.
Use of Surveillance Cameras – Installation and use of surveillance cameras to deter and
prosecute illegal dumping at high priority sites identified within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area.
Use of Physical Barriers or Improvements – Installation and use of physical barriers (e.g.,
fences, walls) or physical improvements (e.g., maintenance) which eliminate or deter illegal
dumping at high priority sites identified within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area.
Load Reduction Credits
Permittees will receive load reduction credits presented in Table CR‐5.1 for the implementation of
control measures described in this fact sheet. Each control measure and associated credit is considered
to be mutually exclusive of the other.
Please Note: To avoid penalizing early implementers, applicable control measures implemented by a
Permittee prior to MRP adoption and continued in a given year of interest will be credited equally to
new or enhanced control measures implemented after the adoption of the MRP. Load reduction credits
associated with the implementation of these control measures may be used to demonstrate progress
towards trash load reduction goals.
21
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Table CR-5.1. Summary of trash load reduction credits for implementing anti-littering and illegal dumping
enforcement activities.
Load Reduction
Control Measure
Credit (%)
Anti-Littering and Illegal Dumping Investigation and Enforcement Program 2
Use of Surveillance Cameras or Other Deterrents
Tier 1 – 20-50% of identified hot spots under surveillance 1
Tier 2 – >50% of identified hot spots under surveillance 2
Use of Physical Barriers/Improvements at a percentage of hotspots
Tier 1 – Implemented at 20-50% of identified hot spots 1
Tier 2 – Implemented at >50% of identified hot spots 2
Total Possible Load Reduction Credit 6
References
City of San Francisco. 2001. Litter and Graffiti. Report of the 2000‐2001 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury. Available at
http:/www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/index.aspx?page=242. Accessed November 12, 2010.
22
2/1/12
Technical Report
CR‐6: IMPROVED TRASH BIN/CONTAINER MANAGEMENT (AREA‐WIDE)
Receptacles used to place/store trash or recyclables prior to collection by a public agency or private
waste hauler reduce the potential for littering and trash loading to stormwater conveyance systems and
receiving waters (City of Los Angeles 2004). For the purposes of assigning trash load reduction credits,
receptacles fall into the following two categories:
Private Trash/Recycling Bins: A receptacle for placing trash or recyclables generated from a
household, business, or other location that is serviced by a trash hauler. Bins are specifically‐
designed, heavy‐duty plastic wheeled containers with hinged lids; or large multi‐yard metal or
plastic containers rectangular in shape.
Public Area Trash Containers: A receptacle for placing incidental trash generated in public
spaces that provides people with a convenient and appropriate place to dispose of trash. The
design and size of public area trash containers vary widely, depending on their setting and use.
The effectiveness of bins/containers and bins in reducing trash in the environment is likely dependent
upon: the location and density of the receptacles, size of the bin/container in relationship to the size
needed to service users, frequency of maintenance, and the ability of the bin/container to capture and
contain the trash deposited.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measure enhancements implemented by Permittees. These crediting methods are intended to
demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation within an individual Permittee’s
jurisdictional area.
Ensuring Adequate Private Trash Service – Implementation of a program that identifies
businesses or households that have inadequate trash service (i.e., insufficient trash collection or
use of bins which are too small); and through municipal code enforcement or other authorities
requiring businesses/households to sufficiently remedy the issue will receive a load reduction
credit based on the extent of the program. Permittees may choose to coordinate with waste
haulers to assist with the identification of subject households/businesses. Implemented
programs may receive up to 3 percent load reduction credit (if Tier 2 is implemented).
Implementation of Strategic Plan for Public Area Trash Containers – Development and
implementation of a strategic plan that:
o Identifies whether public area trash containers are sufficiently located in high trash
generating areas and are adequately designed to manage trash types that typically are
generated from activities occurring at these areas (e.g., containers with larger openings
designed to accommodate larger trash items (e.g., pizza boxes) are in locations where
people dispose of these items (e.g., near schools or parks).
o Identifies an increased level of inspection and maintenance of public area trash containers is
needed at high trash generating sites.
o Includes the installation of specialty trash bins/containers (e.g., bins for cigarette butts,
sharps, etc.) in specific locations to eliminate or reduce the prevalence of these items in
stormwater.
o Includes the installation of new technologies (e.g., Big Belly Solar Trash Compactors) to
reduce trash in stormwater and reduce the cost of adding public area trash containers.
23
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
The strategic plan should provide recommendations on how the system of public area trash
containers within the Permittee’s jurisdictional area may be enhanced to reduce the volume of
trash in streets, the stormwater conveyance system and waterways. The recommendations in
the plan should begin to be implemented prior to receiving trash reduction credits associated
with this control measure. Implemented plans will receive a 3 percent load reduction credit.
Successful Establishment of Business Improvement Districts with Trash Reduction Control
Measures – Provide support toward the successful establishment of Business Improvement
Districts (BIDs)6 or equivalent entity/actions that incorporates sidewalk sweeping, litter pickup
and/or maintenance of public area trash containers at least once per week in retail/wholesale or
commercial areas. Area‐specific credit will be given for each BID successfully established within
a Permittee’s jurisdictional area that has specific trash reduction language in the agreement or
actions that are equivalent to establishing a BID. The successful establishment of each BID or
equivalent actions that include trash reduction control measures will receive a load reduction
credit of 50% of its baseline load.
Load Reduction Credits
Permittees will receive load reduction credits presented in Table CR‐6.1 for the implementation of trash
generation reduction7 control measures described in this fact sheet. Please Note: To avoid penalizing
early implementers, applicable control measures implemented by a Permittee prior to MRP adoption
and continued in a given year of interest will be credited equally to new or enhanced control measures
implemented after the adoption of the MRP. Load reduction credits associated with the implementation
of these control measures may be used to demonstrate progress towards trash load reduction goals.
Table CR-6.1. Summary of trash load reduction credits for improved trash bin/container management control measures
Load Reduction Credit
Control Measure
(%)
Ensuring Adequate Private Trash Service and Enclosures
Tier 1 – Development and Approval of Ordinance (or equivalent) for Appropriate Trash
1
Services (Bin/Enclosure Design) for Private Properties
Tier 2 – Development and Approval of Ordinance (or equivalent) AND Identification and
3
Enforcement of Inadequate Trash Service for Private Trash and Recycling Bins/Containers
Implementation of Strategic Plan for Public Area Trash Containers 3
Successful Establishment of Each Business Improvement District (BID) that Includes Trash 50% of Baseline Load in
Reduction Control Measures Each BID
Total Possible Load Reduction Credit 6+
References
City of Los Angeles 2004. Technical Report: Best Management Practices for Implementing the Trash Total Maximum Daily
Loads, January 2004.
Newman, T.L., W.M. Leo, J.A. Mueller, and R. Gaffoglio 1996. Effectiveness of Street Sweeping for Floatables Control.
Proceedings for Urban Wet Weather Pollution: Controlling Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Pollution. Quebec. June 16‐19,
1996.
6
BIDs are districts or areas in central cities in which the private sector delivers services for revitalization beyond what the local government can
reasonably be expected to provide. The property or business owner within the BID pays a special tax or assessment to cover the cost of
services. Cities provide some oversight but the BID controls its finances.
7
Only trash generation reduction control measures are included in this fact sheet. On‐land and creek cleanups are addressed in Fact Sheets QF‐
1 and QF‐6.
24
2/1/12
Technical Report
8
CR‐7: SINGLE‐USE FOOD AND BEVERAGE WARE ORDINANCES (AREA‐WIDE)
Single‐use food and beverage ware have been found to contribute substantially to the litter stream (City
of Oxnard 2004, City of San Francisco 2008, City of San Jose 2009, Clean Water Action 2011) and can
cause adverse environmental impacts throughout their lifecycles (Ackerman 1997, Alliance for
Environmental Innovation 2000, EPA 2009). The prevalence of litter from single‐use food and beverage
ware in the urban environment also compromises the efficiency of systems designed to convey
stormwater runoff. Furthermore, food and beverage container litter leads to increased clean‐up costs
for MRP Permittees and other public agencies.
Due to the magnitude of food and beverage packaging litter emanating from commercial business
districts, many California municipalities have take action to eliminate the distribution of polystyrene
foam food and beverage ware (See Fact Sheet CR‐2). In addition to polystyrene, municipalities may also
consider actions to reduce the quantity of all single‐use disposable food and/or beverage ware through
measures that promote the use of reusable containers. If enacted and enforced, such ordinances are
expected to significantly trash available to MS4s and local water bodies that is comprised of single‐use
food and beverage ware (San Francisco 2008, Clean Water Action 2011).
Based on the recent experience of municipalities throughout the State of California, a process
Permittees must undertake to enact a food and/or beverage containers ordinance could be very
challenging due to intense scrutiny and opposition from not only public interest groups and lobbyists,
but also merchants and community members. For example, opposition groups have pressed for the
development of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) when developing ordinances banning certain food related bags and ware. Load
reduction credits presented in this fact sheet take into account the level of effort needed to enact an
ordinance for reducing litter associated with single‐use food and beverage ware.
Applicable Control Measures
Load reduction tracking methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban
stormwater runoff control measures implemented by Permittees at the local, countywide or regional
scales. Methods described are intended to demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from
implementation of one or more of these control measures within an individual Permittee’s jurisdiction.
Adoption of an ordinance or equivalent action at the local, countywide, or regional level to
reduce the use of all single‐use food and/or beverage ware from food service vendors
Load Reduction Credits
Permittees shall receive trash load reduction credits that may be applied towards MRP trash reduction
goals for implementing the following control measures:
Tier 1a – Require all food service vendors to: 1) provide consumers a discount for “bringing
their own” reusable beverage ware, or 2) charge consumers a fee for using single‐use
beverage containers – Adoption of a local ordinance or implementation of a statewide or
countywide action that requires ALL food service establishments within their jurisdictional
8
Please note that based on the literature review conducted by BASMAA (2011c), no municipality in the United States has yet attempted to
formally adopt an ordinance such as that described in this factsheet. No model/example ordinance associated with charging mandatory fees or
requiring discounts currently exist. Therefore, the control measures presented in this factsheet should be considered draft and conceptual in
nature. Additionally, based on municipal experience in adopting ordinances for single‐use bags and polystyrene food ware, it is highly likely that
considerable time and resources would be needed to respond to stakeholder comments and concerns.
25
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
boundaries that sell take‐out beverages to provide a discount to consumers on the sale of
beverages when a re‐usable container is used, shall receive a trash load reduction credit of 8
percent. Adoption of a local ordinance or implementation of a statewide or countywide action
that requires ALL food service establishments within their jurisdictional boundaries that serve
take‐out beverages to charge the consumer a fee for each take‐out beverage container used,
shall receive a trash load reduction credit of 12 percent.
Tier 1b – Mandatory Fee for single‐use disposable food and/or beverage containers –
Adoption of a local ordinance or implementation of a statewide or countywide action that
requires ALL food service establishments within their jurisdictional boundaries that sell take‐out
beverages and/or food to provide a discount to consumers on the sale of food and beverages
when a re‐usable container is used, shall receive a trash load reduction credit of 20 percent.
Adoption of a local ordinance or implementation of a statewide or countywide action that
requires ALL food service establishments within their jurisdictional boundaries that serve take‐
out food and/or beverages to charge the consumer a fee for each take‐out food or beverage
container used, shall receive a trash load reduction credit of 24 percent.
Please Note: To receive the trash load reduction credits described above, Permittees must implement in
parallel with the ordinance/action: 1) public education/outreach actions focused on educating
consumers and food service vendors on the implementation the ordinance; and 2) an active
enforcement program that includes inspections of food service vendors to ensure compliance.
Additionally, if a control measure does not fit within one of the tiers described above, a Permittee may
propose a credit commensurate with the nature and intent of the similar action.
A summary of trash load reductions credits available to Permittees implementing these control
measures is provided in Table CR‐7.1.
Table CR-7.1. Summary of trash reduction credits for adopting and enforcing single-use food and beverage ware reduction ordinances.
Load Reduction Credit (%)
Control Measure
Mandatory Discount Mandatory Fee
Tier 1a – Ordinance (or Equivalent) that requires food service vendors to provide a
8 12
discount for “Bring Your Own” or a fee on single use beverage ware
Tier 1b – Ordinance (or Equivalent) that requires food service vendors to provide a
20 24
discount for “Bring Your Own” or a fee on single use food and beverage ware
Total Possible Load Reduction Credits 20 24
References
Ackerman, F. (1997). Environmental Impacts of Packaging in the U.S. and Mexico. Tufts University, PHIL and TECH 2.2.
Alliance for Environmental Innovation (2000). Report of the Starbucks Coffee Company / Alliance for Innovation Joint Task
Force. http://business.edf.org/sites/business.edf.org/files/starbucks‐report‐april2000.pdf
City of Oxnard (2004). Storm Drain Sampling Results. Presentation at plastic debris conference.
conference.plasticdebris.org/whitepapers/Mark_Pumford.doc
City of San Francisco (2008). City of san Francisco Streets Litter Re‐Audit. Prepared by HDR, Brown, Vence and Assocaites, and
MGM Management. http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/library/2008_litter_audit.pdf
26
2/1/12
Technical Report
City of San Jose (2009). San Jose Targeted Litter Assessment. Prepared by MGM Management.
Clean Water Action (2011). Taking Out the Trash Draft Report. http://www.cleanwater.org/programinitiative/taking‐out‐trash‐
california‐0.
US EPA (2009). Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices.
September. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf.
27
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
4.0 LOADS REDUCED QUANTIFICATION FACT SHEETS
This section includes a series of fact sheets that describe trash load reduction quantification
formulas for control measures that were deemed feasible and practical by the BASMAA Trash
Committee to quantify load reductions at this time. Fact sheets presented in this section are listed in
Table 4.1. Quantification formulas presented in the fact sheets are based on the most currently
available information and will require specific data inputs to be tracked or collected by applicable
Permittees. Each fact sheet in this section includes: 1) an introduction; 2) a summary of applicable
control measures; 3) a loads reduced formula; 4) assumptions and data inputs needed to calculate
loads reduced; and, 5) references for all citations.
Table 4.1. Trash control measure for which load reduction quantification formulas were developed to track progress towards trash load
reduction goals.
Fact Sheet
Control Measure Description
Number
QF-1 On-land Trash Cleanups (Volunteer Area-wide quantification formula that is based on the total volume of
and/or Municipal) trash removed by volunteers and/or municipal and flood control agency
staff conducting enhanced single-day or on-going, on-land cleanups.
QF-2 Enhanced Street Sweeping Area-specific quantification formula that is based on the effectiveness of
street sweeping during dry and wet weather, which is affected by parking
enforcement, street sweeping frequency, and storm frequency.
QF-3 Partial-Capture Treatment Devices Area-specific quantification formula that is based on the volume of trash
removed by each partial-capture devices (curb inlet screens, enhanced
pump station trash rack cleaning, and litter booms), which is dependent
on the demonstrated effectiveness. The formula for litter booms is area-
wide while the other two are area-specific.
QF-4 Enhanced Storm Drain Inlet Maintenance Area-specific quantification formula that is based on the increased load
reduced due to increased storm drain inlet maintenance, which is
dependent on the number of inlets maintained at higher frequencies and
the anticipated increase in load reduced due to that particular enhanced
frequency.
QF-5 Full-Capture Treatment Devices Area-specific quantification formula that is based on the volume of trash
removed from full-capture devices, which is dependent on the area
treated by the device.
QF-6 Creek/Channel/Shoreline Cleanups Area-wide quantification formula that includes the total volume of trash
(Volunteer and/or Municipal) removed by MRP-required and other creek, channel or shoreline
cleanups.
28
2/1/12
Technical Report
QF‐1: ON‐LAND TRASH CLEANUPS (AREA‐WIDE)
On‐land cleanups conducted by Permittees and volunteers have been successful in removing trash
from identified trash hot spots and engaging local citizenry in improving their communities.
Permittees have several programs in place to address on‐land trash. Municipal efforts relate to
ongoing beautification of impacted areas and coordination of cleanup events. Volunteer on‐land
cleanups involve the meeting of individuals, creek and watershed groups, civic organizations,
businesses and others at designated or adopted on‐land sites to remove trash. On‐land cleanups are
conducted as single‐day events or throughout the year.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measure enhancements implemented by Permittees. Quantification methods described are
intended to demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation of one or more of
these control measures within an individual Permittee’s jurisdictional area:
Enhanced Permittee‐led On‐land Cleanups – On‐land cleanup activities led by Permittees
on publicly‐owned property that are conducted as part of routine or regularly scheduled
cleanups, homeless encampment removal and illegal dumping response and abatement,
and began after the effective date of the MRP.
Enhanced Volunteer‐led On‐land Cleanups – On‐land cleanup activities led by volunteer
organizations but coordinated with Permittees, including adopt‐a‐highway/street/park/trail
programs that began after the effective date of the MRP.
Please Note: On‐land cleanup activities are differentiated from creek/channel/shoreline cleanup
activities, which are accounted for under fact sheet QF‐6. Additionally, on‐going on‐land cleanup
activities conducted prior to the adoption of the MRP and continued through MRP term are
assumed to be accounted for in the generation rates developed through the BASMAA Baseline Trash
Generation Rates Project. Therefore, on‐land cleanup programs that were implemented prior to the
adoption of the MRP and continued after MRP adoption are assumed to be baseline and cannot be
used to demonstrate progress towards load reduction goals.
Loads Reduced Formula
Based on a review of available data and information gained through literature reviews and
discussions with stakeholders, the following formula provides Permittees a method to estimate the
volume of trash removed from all applicable on‐land cleanup activities conducted in a given year.
This load reduction variable is signified as ReductionCleanups in the following formulas.
Please note that trash removed from on‐land cleanups should be tracked as a volume, as opposed to
mass; and only trash that has the potential of entering an MS4 should be counted towards load
reductions. As a result, large items (e.g., appliances, furniture, mattresses, shopping carts,
televisions, tires, lumber, etc.) removed during on‐land cleanups should not be part of the volume
determination since they do not have the potential of entering the MS4.
29
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
ReductionCleanups = BaselineCleanups ‐ EnhancedCleanups
where:
BaselineCleanups = Volume of trash or removed from all applicable on‐land cleanup
activities prior to the effective date of the MRP
EnhancedCleanups = Volume of trash removed from all applicable on‐land cleanup
activities in year of interest
and;
BaselineCleanups = MunicipalBaselineVol + VolunteerBaselineVol
EnhancedCleanups = MunicipalEnhancedVol + VolunteerEnhancedVol
where:
MunicipalBselineVol = Total volume of trash removed by municipal and flood control agency staff
conducting on‐going, on‐land cleanups prior to the effective date of the
MRP
VolunteerBselineVol = Total volume of trash removed by volunteers conducting single‐
day and on‐going, on‐land cleanups prior to the effective date of
the MRP
MunicipalEnhancedVol = Total volume of trash removed by municipal and flood control agency staff
conducting on‐going, on‐land cleanups in year of interest
VolunteerEnhancedVol = Total volume of trash removed by volunteers conducting single‐
day and on‐going, on‐land cleanups in year of interest
Assumptions and Data Inputs
MunicipalBaselineVol or MunicipalEnhancedVol –To account for the total volume of trash removed
as a result of on‐land cleanups in a year of interest, Permittees may choose to track the
volume of trash removed from:
o Routine or Regularly Scheduled Litter Pickup and Removal;
o Removal of Homeless Encampments;
o Illegal Dump Site Responses and Abatement;
o Interagency Cleanup Coordination and Cleanups9; and,
o Litter Pickup Event Coordination and Cleanups.10
To assist Permittees in tracking trash removed via on‐land cleanups, BASMAA intends to develop a
standardized data collection form for use by Permittees.
VolunteerBaselineVol or VolunteerEnhancedVol – To account for the total volume of trash removed
as a result of on‐land cleanups in a year of interest, Permittees may choose to track the
volume of trash removed by volunteer activities, such as:
9
Interagency Cleanup Coordination and Cleanup ‐ On‐land cleanups coordinated with other departments or programs within a
municipality or countywide agency. Other department, programs or agencies include roads, streets and highways department,
Department or Transportation, Anti‐litter and graffiti programs, Department of Corrections and others that may conduct on‐land trash
cleanups.
10
Litter Pickup Event Coordination and Cleanup ‐ On‐land cleanups coordinated and publicized by the municipality but conducted by
volunteers and/or adult/juvenile offenders. The municipality provides trash bags and disposes of collected trash. Examples include the
annual Great American Pickup Event and other one‐day or on‐going cleanup events.
30
2/1/12
Technical Report
o Single‐day Efforts
Organized Single‐day Cleanup Events
o On‐going Efforts
Keep America Beautiful
Adopt‐a‐Spot, Adopt‐a‐Highway, Adopt‐a‐Trail and Other “Adoption” Programs
Other Organized Cleanup Events
Routine Cleanups of Selected On‐land Hot Spots
Since quantification is viewed as unnecessary since trash is removed for aesthetic reasons, volumes
of trash removed by volunteers have not been and are not currently tracked in most cases. To assist
Permittees in tracking trash removed via on‐land cleanups, BASMAA intends to develop a
standardized data collection form for use by Permittees.
31
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
QF‐2: ENHANCED STREET SWEEPING (AREA‐SPECIFIC)
To some extent, street sweeping is conducted by most, if not all, Permittees. Street sweeping is
either implemented by Permittees via agency staff, or through contractual agreements with private
companies. The traditional purpose of street sweeping is to remove trash and debris that collect on
the margins of streets and may contribute to unsightly conditions and/or reductions in the capacity
of stormwater conveyance systems.
Trash removal effectiveness of street sweeping may be directly affected by sweeper operation (e.g.,
speed of operation), sweeping frequency, and the inability to sweep near curbs due to parked
vehicles. Additionally, runoff producing storms can also impact the effectiveness of street sweepers
by transporting trash to the stormwater conveyance system prior to being intercepted by street
sweepers (Sartor et al 1974, Sartor and Gaboury 1984, Walker and Wong 1999, Armitage 2001).
Based on the findings of the literature review conducted to support tracking method development
(BASMAA 2011c), the effectiveness of a street sweeper to remove trash from streets does not
appear to be heavily influenced by sweeper type (e.g., mechanical broom, regenerative air, or
vacuum assisted).11 Therefore, changes in sweeper type were not included as an applicable trash
control measure enhancement.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measure enhancements implemented by Permittees. These quantification methods are intended to
demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation within an individual Permittee’s
jurisdiction.
Increased Street Sweeping Frequency – Increases in street sweeping frequency in priority
trash generating areas as determined by a Permittee.
Enhanced Parking Enforcement – Actions that significantly increase the removal of vehicles
from streets during street sweeping to allow sweepers to reach the curb. Actions include
increases in the level of parking enforcement and introducing no‐parking signage on streets.
Loads Reduced Formula
Based on a review of available data and information gained through literature reviews, the following
formulas will allow Permittees to estimate the volume of trash removed annually (ReductionStreet)
from conducting street sweeping during the dry season (ReductionStreetDry) and wet season
(ReductionStreetWet) in a year of interest. Stratification of wet and dry seasons is important when
calculating trash loads reduced due to the Mediterranean climate in the San Francisco Bay area
where distinct wet and dry seasons create different timescales for the transport of trash to MS4s. 12
Additionally, as illustrated in the BASMAA Trash Baseline Generation Rates Project Technical
Memorandum and Permittee‐specific Short‐Term Trash Loading Reduction Plans, trash load
reductions due to street sweeping implemented prior to the effective date of the MRP and
conducted at baseline levels are incorporated into each Permittee’s trash baseline load and are
therefore not included in the formulas described below. Baseline implementation levels for street
11
Trash defined is all manmade materials greater than 5 mm in size and the removal efficiency for particles > 2 mm in size is similar for all
sweeper types (Sutherland 2008).
12
In the Bay Area, the dry season is defined as May through October and the wet season if November through April.
32
2/1/12
Technical Report
sweeping are assumed to be: 1) at a sweeping frequency of 1x/week or less for streets within retail
land use areas, and 2x/month or less for streets in all other land use areas; and 2) consistent with
existing levels of parking enforcement or equivalent actions in place at the time the MRP became
effective that allow a sweeper to reach the curb. Trash loads reduced associated with street
sweeping frequencies that are implemented at a higher level than these baseline levels, whether
implemented prior to the MRP effective date (and continued) or after the MRP effective date, are
considered enhancements and included in the formulas described below.
ReductionStreet = ReductionStreetDry + ReductionStreetWet
ReductionStreetDry = Σ EnhancedStreetDry‐i
ReductionStreetWet = Σ EnhancedStreetWet‐i
where:
EnhancedStreetDry‐I = Volume of trash reduced due to enhanced street sweeping or parking
enforcement during the dry season in all trash loading categories “i”.
EnhancedStreetWet‐I = Volume of trash reduced due to enhanced street sweeping or parking
enforcement during the wet season in all trash loading categories “i”.
and:
EnhancedStreetDry‐i = Σ SLoadStreetDry‐i • (ηStreetDryEnhanced‐i – ηStreetDryBase‐i)
EnhancedStreetWet‐i = Σ SloadStreetWet‐i • (ηStreetWetEnhanced‐i – ηStreetWetBase‐i)
where:
SLoadStreetDry‐i = Dry season trash load (volume) available to the street sweepers in area “i”
ηStreetDryEnhanced‐i = Effectiveness (fraction) of enhanced street sweeping in area “i" during the year
of interest dry season as determined by Figure QF‐3.1
ηStreetDryBase‐i = Effectiveness (fraction) of street sweeping in area “i" during the baseline year
dry season as determined by Figure QF‐3.1
SloadStreetWet‐i = Wet season trash load available to the street sweepers in area “i”
ηStreetWetEnhanced‐i = Effectiveness (fraction) of enhanced street sweeping in area “i" during the year
of interest wet season as determined by Figure QF‐3.1.
ηStreetWetBase‐i = Effectiveness (fraction) of enhanced street sweeping in area “i" during baseline
year wet season as determined by Figure QF‐3.1.
Based on the findings of the literature review, the effectiveness of a street sweeping program is
highly dependent upon three factors: 1) frequency of sweeping (average number of days between
sweeping), 2) storm frequency (average number of days between runoff‐producing storms), and 3)
level of parking enforcement (Armitage 2001). As illustrated in Figure QF‐2.1, effectiveness is
correlated with street sweeping frequency and inversely related to storm frequency. Therefore, due
to the increased frequency in storm events that transport trash to the stormwater conveyance
system and make it unavailable for interception on the streets, sweeping effectiveness decreases
substantially during the wet weather season.
To determine the effectiveness of street sweeping conducted by Permittees, Figure QF‐2.1 was
created based on Armitage (2001) and data from the City of Palo Alto’s “No Parking on Sweep Day”
Program (Teresi 2008). The upper curve on the figure depicts the maximum effectiveness of street
sweeping under a high level of parking enforcement (or equivalent) scenario, which includes signage
and ticketing. The lower curve depicts effectiveness under a no parking enforcement (or equivalent)
scenario.
33
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Effectiveness with Parking Enforcement Effectiveness With No Parking Enforcement
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
Street Sweeping Effectiveness
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
Street Sweeping Frequency
Storm Frequency
Figure QF-2.1. Street sweeping effectiveness curve based on sweeping frequency, storm frequency and level of parking enforcement (Adapted from Armitage 2001).
34
2/1/12
Technical Report
Figure 2‐1 is provided for illustrative purposes only. Equations derived from Figure QF‐2.1 are
presented in Table QF‐2.1. These equations should be used to calculate baseline, existing enhanced
and future enhanced street sweeping effectiveness during wet and dry seasons .
Table QF-2.1. Street sweeping effectiveness (H) equations during dry and wet seasons and parking and no parking enforcement
scenarios (based on Figure QF-2.1).
Parking Enforcement
Season Average Frequency Equation
(or Equivalent)
> every 103 days
Dry
Season Yes
every 51.5 days
No
every 9 days
Season Yes
every 4.5 days
No
< every 4.5 days
H = Street Sweeping Effectiveness (% Reduction of Street Load)
S = Street Sweeping Frequency (Number of days between street sweeping)
Assumptions and Data Inputs
SloadStreetDry – The street trash load available to street sweepers during the dry season is
determined on an area‐by‐area basis.13 This load is derived by subtracting the trash load
removed via generation reduction activities (Step #1)14 and on‐land trash cleanup activities
(Step #2) from the dry season baseline trash load for each area. Alternatively, Permittees
may quantify the amount of trash removed in a year of interest and compare that amount
to the amount collected by street sweeping activities in a baseline year during the same
time period, if that data point was collected.
SloadStreetWet – The street trash load available to street sweepers during the wet season is
determined on an area‐by‐area basis.3 This load is derived by subtracting the trash load
removed via generation reduction activities (Step #2) and on‐land trash cleanup activities
(Step #3) from the wet season baseline trash load for each area. Alternatively, Permittees
may quantify the amount of trash removed in a year of interest and compare that amount
to the amount collected by street sweeping activities in a baseline year during the same
time period, if that data point was collected.
13
Trash baseline loading rates associated with these areas, depicted as “i” in the formula, will be partially developed through the BASMAA
baseline trash generation rates development process and will be defined by those factors (e.g., land use, population density, economic
profile) that most affect trash loading.
14
Single‐use carryout bag ordinances, polystyrene foam food service ware ordinances, public education and outreach programs, activities
to reduce trash from uncovered loads, anti‐littering and illegal dumping enforcement activities, improved trash bin/container
management (municipally or privately owned).
35
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Dry Season Effectiveness (ηStreetDryEnhanced‐i and ηStreetDryBase‐i) – The effectiveness of baseline and
enhanced street sweeping during the dry season is estimated on an area‐by‐area basis
based on three variables: 1) average storm frequency during the dry season; 2) street
sweeping frequency in the area of interest; and 3) level of parking enforcement within the
area of interest. Each of these variables is further described below.
o Dry Season Storm Frequency – The average number of days between runoff‐generating
storms in the Bay Area during the dry season was calculated using the 2000‐2010
precipitation data from weather stations located at the San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose
and Concord airports. Based on these data, the average number of days between
storms during the dry season in the Bay Area is 103 days.15 This average dry season
storm frequency is used with the equations presented in QF 2.1 and is assumed to be
relevant to all MRP Permittees.
o Baseline Dry Season Street Sweeping Frequency – Baseline dry season street sweeping
frequencies are those implemented during May through October by a Permittee prior to
the MRP effective date. For many Permittees, baseline frequencies are area‐specific,
typically varying by land use category. Trash load reductions that are attributable to
baseline street sweeping frequencies were incorporated into baseline load estimates
and therefore are not a primary input to this formula. That said, to determine the
increase in load reductions that are attributable to increases in street sweeping
frequencies for particular geographical areas of interest, information on baseline
sweeping frequencies for those areas is also needed. Baseline frequencies were mapped
via GIS to calculate baseline rates and loads (See Section 2.3).
o Increased Street Sweeping Frequency in Year of Interest Dry Season ‐ Enhanced dry
season street sweeping frequencies are those that a Permittee implemented during the
year of interest in the months of May through October. Trash loads reduced associated
with increased frequencies are area‐specific and, similar to baseline frequencies, should
be mapped in GIS. Only the increase in effectiveness associated with increased
sweeping frequencies (i.e., difference between baseline and enhanced effectiveness)
can be used in the formula.
o Enhanced Dry Season Parking Enforcement – Enhanced parking enforcement during
the dry season is defined as those enforcement activities in place during a year of
interest in the months of May through October, but initiated after the effective date of
the MRP. Parking enforcement may be area‐specific. If so, then enhancements
pertaining to different geographical areas within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area must
be identified, again via GIS (See Section 2.3). Trash loads reduced that are associated
with baseline enforcement were incorporated into baseline load estimates and
therefore are not a necessary input to this formula. That said, to determine the loads
reduced that are associated with enhanced enforcement in a particular area of interest,
baseline levels of enforcement are needed.
Wet Season Effectiveness (ηStreetWetEnhanced‐i and ηStreetWetBase‐i) ‐ The effectiveness of baseline
and enhanced street sweeping during the wet season will be estimated on an area‐by‐area
basis using three variables: 1) average storm frequency during the wet season; 2) street
sweeping frequency in the area of interest; and 3) level of parking enforcement within the
area of interest. Each of these variables is further described below.
15
Average dry season storm frequencies for the four weather stations ranged between 77 and 131 days.
36
2/1/12
Technical Report
o Wet Season Storm Frequency – The average number of days between runoff‐
generating storms in the Bay Area during the wet season was calculated using the 2000‐
2010 precipitation data from weather stations located at the San Francisco, Oakland,
San Jose and Concord airports. Based on these data, the average number of days
between storms during the wet season (i.e., first seasonal flush through the last storm
event of the water year) in the Bay Area is 9 days.16 This average wet season storm
frequency is used with the equations presented in QF 2.1 and is assumed to be relevant
to all MRP Permittees.
o Baseline Wet Season Street Sweeping Frequency – Baseline wet season street
sweeping frequencies are those implemented during November through April by a
Permittee prior to the effective date of the MRP. For many Permittees, baseline
frequencies are area‐specific, typically varying by land use category. Trash load
reductions that are attributable to baseline street sweeping frequencies were
incorporated into baseline load estimates and therefore are not a primary input to this
formula. That said, to determine the increase in load reductions that are attributable to
increases in street sweeping frequencies for particular geographical areas of interest,
information on baseline sweeping frequencies for those areas is also needed. Baseline
frequencies were mapped via GIS when calculating baseline rates and loads (See Section
2.3).
o Increased Street Sweeping Frequency in Year of Interest Wet Season ‐ Enhanced wet
season street sweeping frequencies are those that a Permittee implemented during the
year of interest in the months of November through April. Trash loads reduced
associated with increased frequencies are area‐specific and, similar to baseline
frequencies, and were mapped in GIS. Only the increase in effectiveness associated with
increased sweeping frequencies (i.e., difference between baseline and enhanced
effectiveness) can be used in the formula.
o Enhanced Wet Season Parking Enforcement – Enhanced parking enforcement during
the dry season is defined as those enforcement activities in place during a year of
interest in the months of November through April, but initiated after the effective date
of the MRP. Parking enforcement may be area‐specific. If so, then enhancements
pertaining to different geographical areas within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area must
be identified, again via GIS (See Section 2.3). Trash loads reduced that are associated
with baseline enforcement were incorporated into baseline load estimates and
therefore are not a necessary input to this formula. That said, to determine the loads
reduced that are associated with enhanced enforcement in a particular area of interest,
baseline levels of enforcement should be known.
References
Armitage, Neil. 2001. The removal of Urban Litter from Stormwater Drainage Systems. Ch. 19 in Stormwater Collection
Systems Design Handbook. L. W. Mays, Ed., McGraw‐Hill Companies, Inc. ISBN 0‐07‐135471‐9, New York, USA, 2001,
35 pp.
Sartor, J.D., G. B. Boyd, and F.J. Argardy 1974. Water pollution aspects of street surface contaminants. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation: 46, 458‐467. March 1974.
Sartor, J.D and D.R Gaboury 1984. Street sweeping as a water pollution control measure: lessons learned over the past ten
years. The Science of the Total Environment: 33, 171‐183.
16
Average wet season storm frequencies for the four weather stations ranged between 7 an 10 days.
37
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Teresi, J., 2008. Enhanced Street Sweeping: The City of Palo Alto Experience. Presented at the California Stormwater
Quality Association Pre‐conference workshop on Trash. Oakland, CA. October.
Walker, T.A. and T.H.F. Wong 1999. Effectiveness of Street Sweeping for Stormwater Pollution Control. Technical Report
99/8. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Victoria, Australia. December 1999.
38
2/1/12
Technical Report
QF‐3: PARTIAL‐CAPTURE TREATMENT DEVICES (AREA‐WIDE & AREA‐SPECIFIC)
Partial‐capture devices are treatment devices that have not been recognized as full‐capture devices
by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, but capture trash at a known level of effectiveness.
Partial‐capture devices may be similar to full‐capture devices, but do not meet the full‐capture
definition due to engineering challenges, or they may be completely different types of devices. For
the purposes of this load reduction quantification formula, partial‐capture devices include curb inlet
screens (e.g., automated retractable screens), litter booms/curtains and pump station track racks.
Additional treatment types such as low impact development measures are not included in this fact
sheet at this time, but may also be considered partial‐capture devices in the future. Based on the
literature review, the design and effectiveness of partial‐capture devices in intercepting trash varies
among device type and application, suggesting that each device should have a separate associated
effectiveness value.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measure enhancements implemented by Permittees. These quantification methods are intended to
demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation within an individual Permittee’s
jurisdiction.
QF‐3a: Curb Inlet Screens (Step #3; Area‐specific) ‐ devices that were installed prior to or
after the MRP effective date that block trash from entering a storm drain inlet at a known
effectiveness level, allow the trash to be picked up via street sweeping, and are not
associated with other full‐capture devices.17
QF‐3b: Litter Booms/Curtains (Step #3; Area‐specific) – devices that were installed prior to
or after the MRP effective date that block and retain trash in waterways.
QF‐3c: Enhancement to Stormwater Pump Station Track Racks (Step #4; Area‐wide) –
enhancements to existing pump station structures that were installed after the MRP
effective date to increase the effectiveness of trash removal.
Loads Reduced Formulas
Based on a review of available data and information gained through literature reviews, the following
formulas will allow Permittees to estimate the trash load reduced via partial‐capture devices in a
given year (i.e., ReductionScreens and ReductionBooms and ReductionRacks). As with all control measures,
the trash load reduced from partial‐capture devices should be tracked as a volume, as opposed to
mass.
17
Those curb inlet screens associated with full capture devices are NOT an applicable control measure to these formulas. Loads reduced
associated with these curb inlets are incorporated into the formulas for full capture devices.
39
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
A. Curb Inlet Screens (e.g., Automated Retractable Screens)
ReductionScreens = EnhancedScreens
where:
EnhancedScreens = Volume of trash removed by curb inlet screen in municipality in year
of interest
and;
EnhancedScreens = CLoadCurbInlet • EffectEnhanced
where:
CLoadScreens = Annual conveyance load18 for the land areas (i) treated by the partial‐capture
device
EffectEnhanced = percent of trash in the applicable conveyance load that is captured by the
partial‐capture device
Assumptions and Data Inputs
CLoad Screens – The conveyance load applicable to the area treated by a partial‐capture device
will be determined through data collected via the BASMAA Baseline Trash Generation Rates
Project; load reductions via trash generation reduction control measures, on‐land trash
cleanups and street sweeping; and the delineation of the area treated by the partial‐capture
device. Baseline loading rates are discussed in Section 1.0 and load reductions via the three
categories of control measures listed above are described in other fact sheets. To delineate
the drainage area served by a partial‐capture device, BASMAA has developed two
approaches. The first approach involves determining the inlet drainage area through GIS
evaluation and field measurement for each specific device. The second approach entails
calculating the average inlet drainage area by dividing the total number of Permittee‐owned
storm drain inlets into the total urban (developed) area within a Permittees jurisdiction.
Either approach is assumed to be valid for the purposes of calculating loads reduced for curb
inlet screens.
EffectEnhanced – The City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation,
Watershed Protection Division conducted a comprehensive Storm Drain Inlet Opening
Screen Covers Study during FY 2005‐2006 to assess the effectiveness and/or performance of
curb inlet screens. Results suggest that the average trash capture effectiveness of curb inlet
screens is between 83.2 to 84.6 percent (City of Los Angeles 2006b). Effectiveness is based
on the volume of trash captured by the curb inlet screen, compared to the trash that
bypassed the screen. Based on this information, BASMAA recommends that the average
effectiveness rating for curb inlet screens is 84 percent.
18
The “conveyance load” is defined as the baseline trash load minus the loads reduced via generation reduction control measures, on‐
land removal and street sweeping.
40
2/1/12
Technical Report
B. Stormwater Pump Station Trash Rack Enhancements
ReductionRacks= EnhancedRacks – BaselineRacks
where:
EnhancedRack = Volume of trash removed by pump station trash racks in the
Permittee’s jurisdictional area in year of interest
BaselineRack = Volume of trash removed by pump station trash racks in the
Permittee’s jurisdictional area in baseline year(s)
and;
EnhancedRacks = CLoadRacks • EffectEnhanced
BaselineRacks = CLoadRacks • EffectBaseline
where:
WLoadRacks = Annual waterway load19 for the land areas (i) treated by pump station trash
racks
EffectEnhanced = percent of trash in the applicable waterway load that is captured by the
enhanced stormwater pump station trash rack in year of interest.
EffectBaseline = percent of trash in the applicable waterway load that is captured by the
baseline stormwater pump station trash rack in the baseline year(s).
Assumptions and Data Inputs
CLoadRacks – see CLoadScreens
EffectEnhanced –The effectiveness of pump station structure enhancements designed to
remove trash will be enhancement‐specific. No information is currently available regarding
the “average” effectiveness of such enhancements, and therefore effectiveness ratings
should be determined by Permittees that choose to implement this control measure.
EffectBaseline– Typical (baseline) trash racks consist of steel bars spaced 4 to 10 centimeters
apart (Allison et al. 1998) and provide a physical barrier to floating and submerged
pollutants. The effectiveness of baseline trash racks varies widely (5‐100%) based on studies
conducted to‐date. For the purposes of establishing the trash removal effectiveness for
baseline trash racks, a default effectiveness rating of 25% is recommended until additional
information is available.
19
The “waterway load” is defined as volume of trash estimated to pass through the stormwater conveyance system without being
intercepted by control measures.
41
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
C. Litter Booms/Curtains
Based on a review of available data and information gained through literature reviews, the following
formula will allow MRP Permittees to estimate the volume of trash load reduced from installation
and maintenance of trash booms and curtains in a Permittee’s jurisdictional area20 in a given year
(ReductionBooms). Please note that trash load reductions are tracked as a volume, as opposed to
mass.
ReductionBooms = EnhancedBooms
where:
EnhancedBooms = Volume of trash removed from a trash boom or curtain within a
Permittee’s jurisdictional area in the year of interest
Assumptions and Data Inputs
EnhancedBooms – All trash loads in a year of interest that are removed via trash booms and
curtains installed prior to or after the MRP effective date may be tracked and used by
Permittees to assess progress towards trash load reduction goals. Permittees will need to
quantify the volume of trash removed by each boom/curtain in the year of interest.
References
Allison, R.A., T.A. Walker, F.H.S. Chiew, I.C. O’Neill and T.A McMahon 1998. From Roads to rivers: Gross pollutant removal
from urban waterways. Report 98/6. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Victoria, Australia.
May 1998.
City of Los Angeles. 2006b. Technical Report: Assessment of Storm drain inlet Opening Screen Covers. City of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works, Watershed Protection Division. June 2006. 26 pgs
20
A Permittee may take loads reduced credit for litter booms/curtains installed by other agencies within their jurisdictions.
42
2/1/12
Technical Report
QF‐4: ENHANCED STORM DRAIN INLET MAINTENANCE (AREA‐SPECIFIC)
The stormwater conveyance system refers to the constructed drainage system designed to transport
water to waterways during runoff events, and includes storm drain inlets, underground
pipes/drainage lines, culverts, V‐ditches, pump stations and open channels. Storm drain inlets serve
as the entry point to the underground stormwater conveyance system and are generally designed to
reduce flood risks and convey flows. During storm flows, trash on street surfaces is washed into the
stormwater conveyance system and some portion is transported to waterways. Trash can be
intercepted during this transport process through routine maintenance and cleaning of the
conveyance system. Currently, most Permittees maintain and clean components of their stormwater
conveyance system on an annual basis in accordance with countywide Stormwater Drainage System
Operating and Maintenance Performance Standards.
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measure enhancements implemented by Permittees. These quantification methods are intended to
demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation within an individual Permittee’s
jurisdiction.
Increased Frequency of Storm Drain Inlet Maintenance ‐ Permittees may choose to
enhance trash load reductions by increasing the cleaning frequency of storm drain inlets
from baseline (i.e., annually) to semiannually, quarterly or monthly. Increases in cleanout
frequencies may occur in storm drain inlets throughout a Permittees jurisdiction or within
targeted areas.
Loads Reduced Formula
Based on a review of available data and information gained through literature reviews, the following
formulas will allow Permittees to estimate the trash load reduced via increased frequency of storm
drain inlet maintenance in a given year (i.e., ReductionDrains). As with all control measures, the trash
load reduced from this control measure should be tracked as a volume, as opposed to mass.
ReductionDrain = Σ EnhancedDrain‐ij
where:
EnhancedDrain‐ij = Trash load reduction attributable to an increased frequency of storm
drain inlet maintenance “j” (semi‐annually, quarterly, or monthly) at a
storm drain located in a trash loading category “i”.
and;
EnhancedDrain‐ij = NDrains‐ij • CLoadDrainBase‐ix • PDrain‐j
where:
NDrain‐ij = Number of storm drain inlets within a Permittee’s jurisdiction where
increased cleaning occurred in the year of interest and whose
drainage areas are classified in the trash loading category “i” and are
cleaned at an increased frequency “j”.
CLoadDrainBase‐i = Trash conveyance load for a storm drain inlet whose drainage area is
classified in the trash loading category “i” and has a trash reduction
rate “x” at a baseline (annual) cleaning frequency.
43
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
PDrain‐j = Percent increase in volume of trash removed annually (above
baseline) due to increased maintenance at frequency, “j”.
Assumptions and Data Inputs
NDrain‐ij – Storm drain inlets are typically cleaned annually by Permittees and therefore an
annual maintenance frequency is identified as baseline. The trash load reduced via annual
cleaning is incorporated into the baseline trash load, and therefore is not included as a
variable in this formula. That said, this variable is assumed the number or inlets cleaned at
each frequency and their associated land use is needed.
CLoadDrainBase‐ix – The trash conveyance load applicable a storm drain inlet will be determined
through: 1) the trash baseline generation rate developed via the BASMAA Baseline Trash
Generation Rates Project for loading rate category “i” and the application of this rate using
the load reduction tracking process described in Section 2.3 to develop a Permittee‐specific
conveyance loading rate; 2) the area within a Permittee’s jurisdiction that is associated with
loading rate category “i”; 3) the number of storm drain inlets in a Permittee’s jurisdiction
and associated with loading rate category “i”; and 4) the percent of trash removed from an
inlet under a baseline (annual) cleaning frequency.
PDrain‐j – There are limited data available on the reductions of trash associated with different
storm drain inlet maintenance frequencies. Through the literature review associated with
this project, one Bay Area study was found that assessed the effectiveness of storm drain
maintenance frequencies on debris (i.e., trash and other materials) removal. Data from the
Storm Inlet Pilot Study in Alameda County (Woodward Clyde 1994) listed in Table QF‐4.1 are
recommended for use as inputs to this variable. These data are assumed to be applicable to
the entire San Francisco Bay area.
Table QF-4.1 Percent increase above baseline in volume removed from
storm drain inlets due to an increase in storm drain inlet maintenance.
Percent Increase Above Baseline
Frequency
(by Volume)
Monthly 215
Quarterly 50
Semi‐annually 22
Annually Baseline
References
Woodward‐Clyde. 1994. Storm Inlet Pilot Study. Prepared for the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water
Program.
44
2/1/12
Technical Report
QF‐5: FULL‐CAPTURE TREATMENT DEVICES (AREA‐SPECIFIC)
As defined by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), a full‐capture system or device is
any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has
a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate (Q) resulting from a one‐year, one‐
hour, storm in the sub‐drainage area. The MRP requires population‐based Permittees to install and
maintain a minimum number of full‐capture devices by July 1, 2014 to treat runoff from an area
equivalent to 30 percent of retail/wholesale land that drains to MS4s within their jurisdictions21. In
addition, full‐capture systems or devices may have been installed by Permittees or private entities
prior to the adoption of the MRP, and in the future Permittees may choose to install additional
devices. A list of full‐capture systems and devices that are recognized by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is included as Table QF‐5.1 (SFEP 2010).
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measure enhancements implemented by Permittees. These quantification methods are intended to
demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation within an individual Permittee’s
jurisdiction.
Trash Full‐Capture Treatment Devices – Trash capture devices recognized by the Water
Board as meeting the “full‐capture” definition (see Table QF‐5.1 for examples) that are
located in a Permittees jurisdictional area, installed prior to or after the effective date of the
MRP, and are adequately maintained by the Permittee or a private entity.
Loads Reduced Formula
Based on a review of available data and information gained through literature reviews, the following
formula will allow MRP Permittees to estimate the volume of trash load reduced from all full‐
capture devices in a Permittee’s jurisdictional area in a given year (ReductionFullCap Devices). Please
note that trash load reduced from full‐capture devices is tracked as a volume, as opposed to mass.
ReductionFullCap = Σ EnhancedFullCap
where:
EnhancedFullCap = Volume of trash removed from a full‐capture device within a
Permittee’s jurisdictional area in the year of interest
and;
EnhancedFull Cap Devices = CRatei • AreaTreati
where:
CRatei = Conveyance loading rate (volume/acre/year) for areas associated with trash
loading category “i” and are being treated by a full‐capture device in the year
of interest
AreaTreati = Area (acres) associated with trash loading category “i” that are being treated by
a full‐capture device in the year of interest
21
A population‐based Permittee with a population less than 12,000 and retail/wholesale land less than 40 acres, or population less than
2,000, is exempt from installing and maintaining a minimum number of full capture devices.
45
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Table QF-5.1. Devices recognized by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board as meeting the trash full-capture definition.
Storm Drain Inserts Hydrodynamic Separators
Advanced Solutions Contech Construction Products
AS-1 Stormtek ST3 CCP-1HF Continuous Deflective Separator (CDS)
AS-2 Stormtek ST3-G
KriStar Enterprises, Inc.
Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. KS-6HF Downstream Defender
BC-1 Grate Inlet Skimmer Box (square design) KS-7HF FloGard Dual-Vortex Hydrodynamic Separator
BC-2 High Capacity Round Grate Inlet Skimmer Box
BC-3 Modular Connector Pipe Screen In-line Netting
BC-4 Trash Guard
Fresh Creek Technologies, Inc.
FCT-1HF Inline Netting Trash Trap
Ecology Control Industries (American Stormwater)
ECI-1 Debris Dam
KriStar Enterprises, Inc.
KS-10HF Nettech Gross Pollutant Trap - In Line
G2 Construction, Inc.
G2-1 Collector Pipe Screen
End-of-Pipe Netting
G2-1R Collector Pipe Screen Removable
Fresh Creek Technologies, Inc.
Gentile Family Industries (Waterway Solutions) FCT-2HF End of Pipe Netting Trash Trap
GFI-1 WAVY GRATE Trash Catcher
KriStar Enterprises, Inc.
KriStar Enterprises, Inc. KS-11HF Nettech Gross Pollutant Trap- End of Line
KS-1 Flo Gard Plus Storm drain inlet Filter Insert, combination
inlet style – C3 (stainless steel) Other In-line Devices
KS-2 Flo Gard Plus Storm drain inlet Filter Inserts, flat grated
inlet style, rectangular or round – C3 (stainless steel) Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc.
KS-3 FloGard Storm drain inlet Outlet Screen Insert BC-5HF Nutrient Separating Baffle Box
Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc. KriStar Enterprises, Inc.
REM-1 Triton Bioflex Drop Inlet Trash Guard KS-5HF CleansAll
KS-8HF FloGard Perk Filter
United Stormwater, Inc. KS-9HF FloGard Swirl-Flo Screen Separator
USW-1 Connector Pipe Screen Roscoe Moss Company
RMC-1HF Storm Flo Screen
West Coast Storm, Inc.
WCS-1 Connector Pipe Screen
Assumptions and Data Inputs
CRatei –Permittee‐specific conveyance loading rates will be used to calculate load reduction
credits for installation and maintenance of full‐capture devices. Conveyance rates are
Permittee‐specific and are based on trash baseline generation rates developed via the
BASMAA Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project and implementation of trash generation
reduction activities in the year of interest, on‐land trash cleanups and street sweeping
programs by the Permittee. Conveyances rates will vary by loading category “i”.
AreaTreatI – To delineate the drainage area served by a full‐capture device, BASMAA has
developed three approaches that a Permittee may choose to use:
1. Field Survey and Map Review ‐ Applicable to all full‐capture devices listed in Table
QF‐5.1, involves the delineation of the geographical area treated through field
surveys and/or the review of maps of the stormwater conveyance network.
2. Permittee Average ‐ Only applicable to storm drain inserts listed in Table QF‐5.1,
entails calculating the average drainage area treated by a storm drain insert by
dividing the total number of Permittee‐owned storm drain inlets into the total
46
2/1/12
Technical Report
urban (developed) area within a Permittee’s jurisdictional area that is served by the
MS4.
3. Regional Average ‐ average drainage area (1.75 acres per inlet) for ~160 storm drain
inserts calculated as part of the BASMAA Baseline Trash Generation Rates Project
(BASMAA 2011d).
For the purposes of defining average drainage area, either approach is assumed to be valid
for storm drain inserts. Regardless of the approach chosen, the geographical areas treated
by full‐capture devices should be mapped using GIS to allow for trash load reduction
quantification to occur.
References
SFEP (San Francisco Estuary Partnership).2010. Bay Area‐wide Trash Capture Demonstration Project: Vendors
and Devices approved March 18, 2010. 2pgs.
47
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
QF‐6: CREEK/CHANNEL/SHORELINE CLEANUPS (VOLUNTEER AND/OR
MUNICIPAL)(AREA‐WIDE)
Creek cleanups have been successful in removing large amounts of trash from San Francisco Bay
area creeks and waterways, and increasing citizen's awareness of trash issues within their
communities. Creek cleanups are conducted as single‐day events or throughout the year by
volunteers and Permittees. Since volunteers and municipal agencies have the common goal of clean
creeks and waterways, their efforts sometimes overlap. This is apparent in Permittees coordinating
with volunteers to help assess and clean designated trash hot spots during single‐day volunteer
events. In most cases, creek cleanups are an effort of “last resort” due to the increased expense and
difficulty of removing trash in creeks, compared to long‐term solutions such control measures that
fall under the trash generation reduction .
Applicable Control Measures
Methods described in this fact sheet are applicable to the following urban stormwater runoff control
measure enhancements implemented by Permittees. These quantification methods are intended to
demonstrate trash load reductions resulting from implementation within or “downstream” of an
individual Permittee’s jurisdictional area.
MRP‐required Creek/Channel/Shoreline Cleanups ‐ In accordance with the Permit Provision
C.10.b., Permittees are required to annually assess and clean a number of trash hot spots to
a level of “no visual impact”. Through these efforts, total volumes of trash removed from
this effort are estimated. MRP‐required creek/channel/shoreline cleanups are mostly
conducted by Permittee staff, but in some instances volunteers assist Permittees.
Non MRP‐required Creek/Channel/Shoreline Cleanups ‐ In addition to MRP‐required
cleanups, some Permittees conduct or actively support creek/channel/shoreline cleanups as
part of volunteer events, routine maintenance, homeless encampment removal and illegal
dumping response and abatement.
Loads Reduced Formula
Based on a review of available data and information gained through literature reviews and
personnel interviews, the following formula will allow MRP Permittees to estimate the volume of
trash load reduced from all applicable creek/channel/shoreline cleanup activities in a year of
interest (ReductionCreekCleanups). Please note that trash loads removed from creek/channel/shoreline
cleanups should be tracked as a volume, as opposed to mass.
ReductionCreekCleanups = EnhancedCreekCleanups
where:
EnhancedCreekCleanups = Volume of trash removed from all applicable
creek/channel/shoreline cleanup activities in year of interest
and;
EnhancedCreekCleanups = MRP‐RequiredEnhanced + OtherEnhanced
where:
MRP‐RequiredEnhanced = Volume of trash removed by Permittee staff and volunteers conducting
MRP‐required creek/channel/shoreline trash hot spot cleanups in year of
interest
48
2/1/12
Technical Report
OtherEnhanced = Volume of trash removed via all other (i.e., non MRP‐required)
creek/channel/shoreline cleanups in year of interest
Assumptions and Data Inputs
MRP‐RequiredEnhanced – All trash loads reduced via hot spot cleanups required by MRP
Provision C.10.b. during the year of interest may be tracked and used by Permittees to
assess progress towards trash load reduction goals. Consistent with established tracking
methods, Permittees will quantify the volume of trash removed from each trash hot spot
cleanup during each annual hot spot cleanup event and identify the dominant types of trash
(e.g., glass, plastics, paper) removed and their sources to the extent possible. In some
instances, volunteers may assist agencies with these cleanups. This information will be
reported in Permittee Annual Reports submitted to the Water Board each year by
September 15.
OtherEnhanced – Similar to MRP‐required hot spot cleanups, all trash loads reduced via
creek/channel/shoreline cleanups during the year of interest that are outside of those
required by the MRP may be tracked and used by Permittees to assess progress towards
trash load reduction goals. These cleanups include but are not limited to:
Permittee & Volunteer Collaborative Activities
o Single‐day Efforts
National River Cleanup Day (third Saturday in May)
Coastal Cleanup Day (third Saturday in September)
Other Organized Single‐day Events
o On‐going Efforts
Adopt‐a‐Creek and Other “Adoption” Programs
Other Organized Cleanup Efforts
– Individuals or Organized Groups
– Creek/Watershed Group
– Non‐governmental Organizations (e.g., Save the Bay, etc.)
Permittee‐led Cleanup Activities
o On‐going Efforts
Removal of Homeless Encampments
Routine or Regularly Scheduled Creek Maintenance
Illegal Dump Site Correction
Measure‐funded Programs
Other On‐going Cleanup Efforts
To determine the total volume of trash removed from all non MRP‐required cleanups,
volunteers and Permittees will need to track the volume of trash removed from these efforts as
accurately as feasible. Data types need to calculate loads removed may include the number of
cleanups conducted, number of locations cleaned and the number and size of trash bags filled.
49
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
In most cases, however, volunteer groups do not quantify the volume of trash removed since
they are most interested in improving creek conditions, estimating volumes. Therefore,
Permittees may not be able to track the trash loads removed from all non MRP‐related cleanups
conducted within their jurisdictions. It is recommended that Permittees identify which
creek/channel/shoreline cleanups they conduct and want to demonstrate trash loads reduced,
and track the volumes of trash removed from these efforts. In addition, it is recommended that
Permittees identify which volunteer creek/channel/shoreline cleanups conducted that they
want to demonstrate trash loads reduced, and establish relationships with volunteers regarding
data collection and submittal of cleanup data to Permittees. To assist Permittees in tracking the
volume of trash removed from all non MRP‐related cleanups, BASMAA plans to develop a
standardized data collection form for Permittee and volunteer use.
50
2/1/12
Technical Report
5.0 LOAD REDUCTION REPORTING AND VERIFICATION
5.1 Annual Reporting
Consistent with MRP Provision C.10.d (i), Permittees will report on progress towards MRP trash load
reduction goals on an annual basis beginning with their Fiscal Year 2011‐2012 Annual Reports.
Annual reports will include:
1. A brief summary of all enhanced trash load reduction control measures implemented to‐
date;
2. The dominant types of trash likely removed via these control measures;
3. Total trash loads removed (credits and quantifications) via each control measure
implementation; and
4. A summary and quantification of progress towards trash load reduction goals.
Similar to other MRP provision, annual reporting formats will be consistent region‐wide and each
Permittee will submit a completed annual report to the Water Board by September 15 of each year.
Annual reports are intended to provide a summary of control measure implementation and
demonstrate progress toward MRP trash reduction goals. For more detailed information on specific
control measures, Permittees will retain supporting documentation on trash load reduction control
measure implementation. These records should have a level of specificity consistent with the trash
load reduction tracking methods described in this Technical Report.
5.2 Verification of Trash Load Reductions
Measuring trends in stormwater runoff quality via empirical monitoring is incredibly challenging due
to the inherent temporal and spatial variability in sources, transport processes and deposition rates
in water bodies. These inherent challenges make it difficult to detect if differences (increases or
decreases) in stormwater quality (e.g., trash loads) are due to natural variability, or as a result of
changes in sources and associated loadings. Therefore, any stormwater runoff or receiving water
monitoring conducted in an attempt to detect trends in trash loading to receiving waters should be
well thought‐out and statistically based. If Permittees choose to conduct such monitoring, the
development a monitoring (verification) plan will take time and require the input of a number of
stakeholders (e.g., scientists, Permittee and Water Board staff, NGOs).
Verification monitoring is not required by the MRP, but is currently under consideration by BASMAA.
Due to the compliance schedules set forth in the MRP and the focus on implementation during the
Permit term, a monitoring (verification) plan is not included in this version of the Technical Report.
However, MRP Permittees will consider the development of a load reduction monitoring
(verification) plan prior to July 1, 2014. A combination of BMP effectiveness, stormwater discharge,
and receiving water monitoring, assessments and studies should be considered during the plan
development. Once a plan is finalized, it should be incorporated into this Technical Report.
Implementation of the plan is subject to available funding.
51
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
6.0 REFERENCES
Ackerman, F. (1997). Environmental Impacts of Packaging in the U.S. and Mexico. Tufts University, PHIL and
TECH 2.2.
Alliance for Environmental Innovation (2000). Report of the Starbucks Coffee Company / Alliance for
Innovation Joint Task Force. http://business.edf.org/sites/business.edf.org/files/starbucks‐report‐
april2000.pdf
Allison R.A. and F.H.S. Chiew 1995. Monitoring stormwater pollution from various land uses in an urban
catchment. Proceedings from the 2nd International Symposium on Urban Stormwater Management,
Melbourne, 551‐516.
Allison, R.A., T.A. Walker, F.H.S. Chiew, I.C. O’Neill and T.A McMahon 1998. From Roads to rivers: Gross
pollutant removal from urban waterways. Report 98/6. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment
Hydrology. Victoria, Australia. May 1998.
Armitage, N. 2001. The removal of Urban Litter from Stormwater Drainage Systems. Ch. 19 in Stormwater
Collection Systems Design Handbook. L. W. Mays, Ed., McGraw‐Hill Companies, Inc. ISBN 0‐07‐135471‐9,
New York, USA, 2001, 35 pp.
Armitage, N. 2003. The removal of urban solid waste from stormwater drains. Prepared for the International
Workshop on Global Developments in Urban Drainage Management, Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay, Mumbai India. 5‐7 February 2003.
Armitage, N. 2007. The reduction of urban litter in the stormwater drains of South Africa. Urban Water Journal
Vol. 4, No. 3: 151‐172. September 2007.
Armitage N., A. Rooseboom, C. Nel, and P. Townshend 1998. “The removal of Urban Litter from Stormwater
Conduits and Streams. Water Research Commission (South Africa) Report No. TT 95/98, Prestoria.
Armitage, N. and A. Rooseboom 2000. The removal of urban litter from stormwater conduits and streams:
Paper 1 – The quantities involved and catchment litter management options. Water S.A. Vol. 26. No. 2:
181‐187.
BASMAA (Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association). 2011a. Method to Estimate Baseline
Trash Loads from Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Systems: Technical Memorandum #1. Prepared by EOA,
Inc. April.
BASMAA (Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association). 2011b. Sampling and Analysis Plan.
Prepared by EOA, Inc. April.
BASMAA (Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association). 2011c. Trash Load Reduction Tracking
Method: Technical Memorandum #1 – Literature Review. Prepared by EOA, Inc. May.
BASMAA (Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association). 2012. Preliminary Baseline Trash
Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s ‐ Technical Memorandum. Prepared by EOA, Inc.
February.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2007. Board Meeting Agenda, Resolution: Agenda
Item 14. Sacramento, CA. June 12, 2007.
CalRecycle. 2010. At‐Store Recycling Program: 2009 Statewide Recycling Rate for Plastic Carryout Bags. Available at
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Plastics/AtStore/AnnualRate/2009Rate.htm#Rate. Accessed June 22, 2011.
52
2/1/12
Technical Report
CalRecycle. 2011. Earth Day 2011: Being Green, Living Green. Available at
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/PublicEd/EarthDay/How.htm. Accessed March 17, 2011.
CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association). 2007. Municipal Stormwater Program Effectiveness
Assessment Guidance. May 2007.
CVC (California Vehicle Code). 2011. California Vehicle Code Sections 23114 and 23115.
City of Los Angeles 2004. Technical Report: Best Management Practices for Implementing the Trash Total
Maximum Daily Loads, January 2004. Watershed Protection Division, Department of Public Works, Bureau
of Sanitation. cited in Gordon, M., and R. Zamist. 2006. Municipal Best Management Practices for
Controlling Trash and Debris in Stormwater and Urban Runoff.
City of Los Angeles. 2006b. Technical Report: Assessment of Storm drain inlet Opening Screen Covers. City of
Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Watershed Protection Division. June 2006. 26 pgs.
City of Oxnard (2004). Storm Drain Sampling Results. Presentation at plastic debris conference.
conference.plasticdebris.org/whitepapers/Mark_Pumford.doc
City of San Francisco 2001. Litter and Graffiti. Report of the 2000‐2001 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury. Available
at http:/www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/index.aspx?page=242. Accessed November 12, 2010.
City of San Francisco (2008). City of san Francisco Streets Litter Re‐Audit. Prepared by HDR, Brown, Vence and
Assocaites, and MGM Management.
http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/library/2008_litter_audit.pdf
City of San Jose (2009). San Jose Targeted Litter Assessment. Prepared by MGM Management.
City of San Jose. 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Single‐Use Carryout Bag Ordinance File No. PP09‐
194 SCH #2009102095. July 2010.
Clean Water Action (2011). Taking Out the Trash Draft Report.
http://www.cleanwater.org/programinitiative/taking‐out‐trash‐california‐0.
County of Los Angeles. 2002. Los Angeles County Litter Monitoring Plan for the Los Angeles River and Ballona
Creek Trash Total Maximum Daily Load. May 30, 2002.
County of Los Angeles. 2004a. Trash Baseline Monitoring Results Los Angles River and Ballona Creek
Watershed. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. February 17, 2004.
County of Los Angeles 2004b. Trash Baseline Monitoring for Los Angles River and Ballona Creek Watersheds.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. May 6, 2004.
County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division. 2007. An Overview of
Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: A Staff Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
Alhambra, CA. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/PlasticBags/PDF/PlasticBagReport_08‐2007.pdf. August
2007.
Kim, L.H, M. Kayhanian, M.K. Stenstrom 2004. Event mean concentration and loading of litter from highways
during storms. Science of the Total Environment Vol 330: 101‐113.
Kotler, P. Kotler on Marketing: How to Create, Win, and Dominate Markets. New York: Free Press, 1999. Print.
Lippner, G., R. Churchwell, R. Allison, G. Moeller, and J. Johnston 2001. A Scientific Approach to Evaluating
Storm Water Best Management Practices for Litter. Transportation Research Record . TTR 1743, 10‐15.
Sartor, J.D., G. B. Boyd, and F.J. Argardy 1974. Water pollution aspects of street surface contaminants. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation: 46, 458‐467. March 1974.
53
2/1/12
Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method (Version 1.0)
Sartor, J.D and D.R Gaboury 1984. Street sweeping as a water pollution control measure: lessons learned over
the past ten years. The Science of the Total Environment: 33, 171‐183.
SFEP (San Francisco Estuary Partnership).2010. Bay Area‐wide Trash Capture Demonstration Project: Vendors
and Devices approved March 18, 2010. 2pgs.
Teresi, J., 2008. Enhanced Street Sweeping: The City of Palo Alto Experience. Presented at the California
Stormwater Quality Association Pre‐conference workshop on Trash. Oakland, CA. September 2008.
United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at
http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_A_Global_Challenge.pd
f April 2009.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris.
August 2002. Available at
http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/marinedebris/upload/2006_10_6_oceans_debris_floatingdebris_debris‐
final.pdf
USEPA (2009). Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management
Practices. September. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf.
Walker, T.A. and T.H.F. Wong 1999. Effectiveness of Street Sweeping for Stormwater Pollution Control.
Technical Report 99/8. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Victoria, Australia.
December 1999.
Woodward‐Clyde. 1994. Storm Inlet Pilot Study. Prepared for the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water
Program.
54
2/1/12