MS4 Trash Reduction in SF Bay Area Lessons Learned To-date

 CASQA Trash Webinar July 29, 2014

Chris  Sommers Managing  Scientist   csommers@eoainc.com  

California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region

Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit

Order R2-2009-0074 NPDES Permit No. CAS612008

October 14, 2009

Presentation  Outline  

1.  Bay Area Phase I MS4 Permit Requirements

2.  Identifying High Trash Generating Areas

3.  Management Action Implementation

4.  Assessing Progress Towards Goals

5.  Summary of Lessons Learned

•  Urban creeks and shorelines in the Bay Area impacted by trash/litter (2010 303d list)

•  Phase I Permit (MRP) 76 Permittees – 6M people •  Attain a 40% trash load reduction in discharges from

MS4s within 4.5 years •  70% - 7.5yrs, No impact – 12.5yrs •  Trash Generation Rates/Areas •  Method to track progress towards (Assessment Strategy)

•  Install full capture devices to treat an area equivalent to 30% of land area with retail land use

•  Annually cleanup trash hotspots in urban creeks or shorelines to “no visual impact”

Current Phase I NPDES Permit Requirements

BASMAA Regional Trash Generation Rates Project

Literature  Review  

Trash  Genera1on  

Rates  

Trash  Genera1on  Conceptual  Model  

Monitoring  &  Analysis  

• Australia    • South  Africa  • Los  Angeles  • New  York    

• Hypothesis:  Genera&on  affected  by  a  tractable  set  of  factors  

• 159  sites  • 4  events  • 6  LU  classes  • 3  income  brackets  

• 5,500  gallons  (735  F3)  

• Annual  Rates  • Volumes/Acre  • 6  LU  classes  (2  factor  in  income)  

Trash Generation Rate Categories & Map Creation

•  Areas within jurisdictions grouped into 4 categories based on generation rates o  Consistent with level of precision possible to detect change/progress o  Green – success/goal

SF Bay Area Trash Generation

Areas

Lessons Learned Identifying Trash Generating Areas

•  Generation rates range substantially among areas o  0.5 to 150 gallons/acre (0.7-20 ft3/acre) o  Similar to LA region

•  Land use important, but not only factor to consider o  3-order range within land use class o  Significant correlations with factors other than

land use (e.g., MHHI) o  Current control measure implementation

•  Site-specific verification can help optimize Permittee

implementation

Full Capture Devices

•  Permit- 5,700 acres (region-wide) required for treatment

•  Device Types o  31 types of devices have been approved

as full capture by SF Bay Water Board staff (only 5 types “certified” by LA Board)

o  Large and small devices

•  Implementation to-date o  Over 4,100 devices/facilities o  Treating >25,000 acres o  Variety of large and small devices

Device Type Installation Operation & Maintenance

Large •  Hydrodynamic

Separators •  Gross Solids

Removal Devices

•  Netting Devices

•  Treat larger areas •  Larger footprint •  Construction may be

required (Utilities?) •  $10’s-100’s K (site specific

conditions) •  Potential for head loss

•  Multiple inspections

per year •  1 or more clean outs

per year •  1-4 hrs per cleanout

Small •  Connector Pipe

Screens •  Baskets •  Filters

•  Treat small areas (<1-5 acres)

•  Use existing facilities (limited construction)

•  ~$500-1,000 per device •  Importance of vendor

selection

•  More frequent inspections and cleanouts (Ave 4x/yr)

•  20-30 mins per cleanout

Full Capture Devices

Other (Non-FC) Control Measures

•  True Source Control - Product-based Prohibitions o  Local Ordinances o  Single Use Plastic Bags – 60+% of Permittees adopted o  Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Foodware – 40+% of

Permittees adopted o  Ordinances vary on extent/scope

•  Enhanced Street Sweeping + Partial Capture o  Tracking California’s Trash Project – Prop 84 grant funded

•  Public Education and Outreach o  BASMAA “Be the Street” Campaign – Social Media based o  Local and countywide campaigns/programs

•  Other Control Measures o  Improved Waste Management - Franchise Waste Haulers o  On-land cleanups o  Coordination with transportation agencies o  Creek and shoreline cleanups

Assessing Progress Management Questions

•  Are MS4 trash load reduction targets (e.g., 40%) being achieved?

•  Have trash problems in receiving waters been resolved?

•  If trash problems in receiving waters exist, what are the important sources and transport pathways?

Assessment Strategies

1.  Document level of control measure implementation

2.  Verify effective operation and maintenance of full capture devices

3.  Assess levels of trash on streets and right-of-ways via on-land visual protocols

4.  Monitor levels of trash at creek and shoreline hot spots

  Pedestrian Litter

Litter from Vehicles

Inadequate Waste Container

Management

On-land Dumping

Source Categories

Wind Direct Dumping

Urban Creeks and the San Francisco Bay Estuary

Transport Pathways

Receiving Waters

Trash Sources and Pathways to Urban Creeks

Stormwater Conveyances

Full Capture Device O&M

L M

H VH

Other (Non-FC) Control Measures

California  Coastal  Cleanup  

(1985-­‐‑2009)

California  Coastal  Cleanup  

(1985-­‐‑2009)

Tracking California’s Trash Proposition 84 Grant - $1.08 Million (2013-2016)

1.  Trash Monitoring Methods Evaluation o  Trash Flux Monitoring o  On-land Visual Assessments

2.  Stormwater BMP Effectiveness and Cost Studies o  Higher Frequency Street Sweeping o  Street Sweeping + Curb Inlet Screens

3.  Trash Tracker and My Water Quality Portal

Lessons Learned Summary

1.  Trash Generation o  Area/Permittee specific o  Land use not only important factor o  Important to consider existing management actions

2.  Full Capture Devices

o  Larger (Capital) vs. Smaller Devices (O&M) o  Consistent inspection and maintenance necessary o  Choose vendors wisely

3.  Other Control Measures o  Street Sweeping + Curb Inlet Screens ≈ Full Capture Performance? o  True Source Control Actions – Long-term Success

4.  Assessments and Performance o  Full Capture Devices - O&M Verification Program o  Other Control Measures

•  Quantification - Level of precision inherently limited •  Qualitative visual assessments key environmental indicator used to

demonstrate progress

 Chris Sommers EOA, Inc. csommers@eoainc.com 510-832-2852 x109