HomeMy WebLinkAbout _ 9.11(f)--Consider the COR Stormwater Trash Control Measures Cost-Benefit Evaluation Report GI �" Y � F
� � � ° � � � " � � CITY OF REDDING
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2023 FROM: Chuck Aukland,Public
ITEM NO. 9.11(� Works Director
***APPROVED BY***
�
��n � .�.._ s.N,.��
� � � ���
ukl�n�l,H'ciblic Wc�aks L'��reGt ' S;'3/2423 ry ip}�in,�C"i ana � 5,i10/2423
caulcland@ci.redding.ca.us btippin@cityofredding.org
SUBJECT: 9.11(�--Consider the City of Redding Stormwater Trash Control Measures Cost-
Benefit Evaluation Re ort.
Recommendation
Approve the City of Redding Stormwater Trash Control Measures Cost-Bene�t Evaluation
Report and Implementation of Scenario 2; and find that the action is statutorily exempt from
review under the California Environmental Quality Act G�uidelines, pursuant to Section 15262 —
Feasibility and Planning Studies.
Fiscal Impact
There are no direct funding impacts in accepting the Stormwater Trash Control Measures Cost-
Benefit Evaluation Report (Report). If accepted, the cost estimates for trash control strategies
and infrastructure identified in the Report will be used for future planning and budgeting
purposes. While planning is ongoing, the cost of the planning effort to date is approximately
$158,750 and has been funded by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)Fixed Fee.
Alterna�ive Action
The City Council may choose not to accept the Report, and provide alternate direction to staf£ It
will be challenging for staff to proceed with planning, funding, and implementing future trash
control improvements in the City of Redding (City) without acceptance of the Report.
Background/Analysis
In response to the growing challenges with trash levels in creeks, rivers, lakes, and shorelines,
the California State Water Board adopted the Trash Amendments (Amendments) in 2015. This
action amended two statewide water quality control plans to include trash control requirements
for owners or operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
Report to Redding City Council May 10,2023
Re: 9.11(f)--Consider the COR Stormwater Trash Control Measures Cost-Benefit Evaluation
Report Page 2
Consistent with the Amendments, the City was required to reduce the amount of trash discharged
from its MS4, beginning in 2020. The City must demonstrate 100 percent capture, or equivalent,
of all trash five millimeters in size or greater by December 2, 2030. Interim trash reduction
milestones and inilestone dates will be implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Phase II Small MS4 General Permit (MS4 Permit) that will be issued to the
City and other public agencies in California, or directed through other regulatory orders.
The Amendments designate land areas where local agencies wi11 need to implement the new
stormwater trash control measures. The designated land areas are based on currently developed
land uses that are presumed to generate high levels of trash. These areas are referred to as
Priority Land Uses (PLUs). The PLUs include high density residential, industrial, commercial,
mixed urban, and public transportation stations that are connected to the City's storm water
system.
To initiate trash control measure implementation planning, the State Water Board issued an order
to Phase II permittees in June 2017 requesting that each public agency choose its compliance
strategy for addressing the Amendments. Track 1 requires the local agency to install, operate,
and maintain State Water Board certified and approved trash full capture systems in the storm
drain system that drains all PLUs. Track 2 allows for a combination of full capture systems,
multi-benefit projects, institutional controls, and/or other treatment controls to achieve full
capture system equivalency. The City notified the State Water Board of its intention to
implement the Track 2 compliance approach.
To date, the City's PLUs have been identified, and a draft Stormwater Trash Control
Implementation Plan and the Report have been prepared. The Report informs the selection of
trash controls to address Amendment requirements mandated by the State Water Board. The
purpose of the evaluation was to identify viable trash controls and preliminary planniug-level
cost estimates for implementing these controls. Eight potential new or enhanced trash control
measures and four trash control measure implementation strategies were evaluated by comparing
base/initial, annual/ongoing, 50-year life cycle costs, and the estimated maximum trash
management benefits. The four implementation strategies include:
� Scenario 1 — Installation & operation of four (4) high-flow capacity (large) and 368 catch
basin inserts (small) trash full capture systems; and the implementation of a new inspection
program to address trash on private properties that do not drain to fu11 capture systems.
� Scenario 2 — Installation & operation of 655 catch basin inserts (small) trash full capture
systems; and the implementation of a new inspection program to address trash on private
properties that do not drain to full capture systems.
� Scenario 3 - I�nstallation&operation of four(4) high-flow capacity(large) trash full capture
systems; installation and maintenance of 312 (partial-capture) curb-inlet screens;
implementation of a new inspection program to address trash on private properties that do not
drain to full capture systems; and the expansion of on-land trash cleanup programs.
� Scenario 4 — Implementation of six (6) types of trash source control measures and no high-
flow capacity(large) or catch basin insert(small) trash full capture systems.
Report to Redding City Council May 10,2023
Re: 9.11(f)--Consider the COR Stormwater Trash Control Measures Cost-Benefit Evaluation
Report Page 3
After reviewing the four implementation strategies, the Public Works Department (Public
Works) chose Scenario 2 for pilot implementation in the Fiscal Year 2023-24. This scenario
provides the lowest life-cycle costs, realistic short-term implementation tasks, and a high
confidence of ineeting the compliance objectives. To fund the pilot implementation, Public
Works will request allocation of resources through the budget cycle that will be adopted in June.
When the City's new MS4 Permit is issued, the State Water Board will require the City to
prepare and submit a fmal Trash Capture Implementation Plan (Plan). The Plan will outline the
implementation strategy the City wi11 employ to meet the required trash reduction milestones.
The next step includes bringing the pilot implementation results and the draft Plan to the Council
for review and approval. Staff recommends the Council accept the Report as it will support the
preparation of the final Plan.
Environmental Review
Staff has reviewed the activity and determined that the action is statutorily exempt from review
under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15262
— Feasibility and Planning Studies. A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for
possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or
funded does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or Negative
Declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. Acceptance of the Report
would not result in physical alteration of the environment, and the action has no potential to have
a significant effect on the environment. No further action is required at this time.
Implementation of any of the four strategies would require separate review under CEQA.
Council Priority/City Manager Goals
This is a rourine operational item.
Attachments
^Notice of Exemption
Final Revised Draft Redding Trash CM Eval Report 20230503
NoTICE oF ExE�rz°ZON
Toz � Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Redding
1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Public Works Department
Sacramenta,CA 95$14 777 Cypr�ss Avenue
Redding,GA 96001
� Shasta County Clerk
County t�f Shasta
P.t7.Box 99Q88n, 1643 Market Street
Redding,CA 96099-0880
Fraject Title; City of Reddin�Starmwater Trash Control Measures Cost-Benefit Evaluation Report J C}#'S012-11
Project Location—Specific: 777 Cypress Avenue -
Pro;�ect Location—City: Redding Project Location—County. Shasta
Descript�on of Praaect: The City of Reddin� (Cit�r) witl accept the Reddin� Stormwater Trash Control Measures
GoSt-Benefit Evaluation Repart (Report). The Re_part informs the selection of trash controis to address the Trash
Amendment requlrements mandated bv the State Water Board The purpose of the evaluation was to identify viable trash
contrals ana prelim�narv plannin�-level cost estimates for implementing these cantrois
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Reddin�
Name of Person or Agency Carrying+Dut Project: Amber Kellev, Environmental Gom liance Mana er
Ex�►npt Status: (check vne)
❑ Ministerial [Section 21 Q$0(b){1); 15268]
CJ Declared Emergency[Section 210$0(b)(3); 15269(a)]
❑ Emergency Project[Section 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)]
� Statutary Exemptions. State code number: 15262.Feasibility and Planning Studies
❑ Common Sense Exemption(This project does not fail within an exempt class, but it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the activity may have a signlficant effect on the environment(14 CCR 15601[b][3]}.
❑ Categorical Exemption. State type and Sectian number:
❑ No exceptions apply that would bar the use of a categoriGal exemption(PRD 21084 and 14 CCR 153Q0.2).
Reasons why project is exempta A project involving only feasibiti or plannin� studies for possible future actians
which th� a�ency board or corr�missian has not approv�d adopted or funded does not require the �reparation of an
Envi1-onmentat Impact Report or Ne�ative Declaration but -does require consideration of environrnental factors The
Report includeS strata�ies and potential future ef�ciency actians� however these actians would require se�arate review
under the California Enviranmental C)ualr Act (CEQA). Acceptance af the Report would not result in �h s„y ical
alteration of the environment, and the action has no potential to have a si�nifcant effect on the enviranment
Lead Agency Cantact Person:Arnber Kelley Telephone: 530:225.4046
If Filed by Applicante
1. Attach certified document of exemption filding.
2. Has a notice of examption b�en filed by the public agency approving the project? ❑ Yes ❑No
Signature:� ..,�' 2ftr'' �''� Date: �"I�'c��
Title: Enviranmental Compliance Man�
0 Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR: ;
❑ Signed by Applicant
S TORMWATER T RASH C ONTROL
M EASURES C OST -B ENEFIT E VALUATION
Complying with the Statewide Trash Amendments
Final Draft
Prepared for:
Prepared b y:
1410 Jackson Street
Oakland, CA 94602
March 2023
Ston-nW t r Trash Control Measures EvaIuat€Ori
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................1
2. POTENTIAL NEW OR ENHANCED TRASH CONTROL MEASURES ................................. 5
2.1 LARGE TRASH FULL CAPTURE SYSTEMS ...........................................
2.2 SMALL TRASH FULL CAPTURE SYSTEMS ...........................................
2.3 TRASH INSPECTIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTIES ..................................
2.4 CURB -INLET SCREENS ON INLETS IN THE PUBLIC ROW ......................
2.5 EXPANDED ON -LAND CLEANUPS ....................................................
2.6 ENHANCED PUBLIC CONTAINER/BIN MANAGEMENT .........................
2.7 ENHANCED CITY-WIDE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAM
2.8 MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE - SINGLE -USE PLASTIC FOOD SERVICE WARE.
2.9 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL NEW OR ENHANCED SOURCE CONTROLS.....
.6
10
14
19
22
25
27
29
31
3. TRASH CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATIONSCENARIOS................................... 32
3.1 SCENARIO 1: TRASH FULL CAPTURE - LARGE AND SMALL SYSTEMS......................................................... 33
3.2 SCENARIO 2: TRASH FULL CAPTURE - SMALL SYSTEMS......................................................................... 33
3.3 SCENARIO 3: LARGE FULL CAPTURE SYSTEMS & MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONAL AND SOURCE CONTROLS ............. 34
3.4 SCENARIO 4: ONLY INSTITUTIONAL AND SOURCE CONTROLS................................................................. 35
3.5 COMPARISON OF TRASH CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS ............................................ 36
5. REFERENCES........................................................................................... 41
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
.:.. ..: ...:
On April 7, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted amendments to
two statewide water quality control plans to include trash control requirements for owners or operators
of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), including those regulated through the California
Statewide Phase 11 NPDES General Permit. These amendments require MS4 owners and operators to
address trash generated in Priority Land Use (PLU) areas and discharged to local water bodies from their
MS4s. The State Water Board allows for two approaches to address the trash generated in PLU areas: 1)
install certified trash full capture systems into the MS4; or 2) implement other trash controls to manage
trash at a level equivalent to full capture systems. The deadline for MS4 owners and operators to address
trash in all PLU areas is December 2030.
To inform the selection of trash controls to address the stormwater trash management requirements
mandated by the State Water Board, the City of Redding (City) conducted a Trash Control Measures
Evaluation. The primary purpose of the evaluation was to identify viable trash controls and preliminary
planning -level cost estimates for implementing these controls to reduce trash in stormwater discharges.
Eight (8) potential new or enhanced trash control measures and four (4) trash control measure
implementation scenarios (e.g., combinations of trash control measures) were evaluated by comparing
base/initial, annual/ongoing, and 50 -year life cycle costs, and the estimated maximum trash management
benefits. Trash control measures evaluated include catch basin insert and high-flow capacity types of
trash full capture systems, trash inspections on private properties, curb -inlet screens on inlets in the
public right-of-way, expanded on -land cleanups, enhanced public container/bin management, enhanced
city-wide public education and outreach, and the adoption/enforcement of a new municipal ordinance to
reduce the distribution of single -use plastic food service ware at local eating establishments. The four (4)
implementation scenarios designed to achieve the goal of the trash amendments include the following:
• Scenario 1— Installation & operation of four (4) high-flow capacity (large) and 368 catch basin
insert (small) trash full capture systems; and the implementation of a new inspection program to
address trash on private properties that don't drain to full capture systems.
• Scenario 2 — Installation & operation of 655 catch basin inserts (small) trash full capture systems;
and the implementation of a new inspection program to address trash on private properties that
don't drain to full capture systems.
• Scenario 3 - Installation & operation of four (4) high-flow capacity (large) trash full capture
systems; installation and maintenance of 312 (partial -capture) curb -inlet screens;
implementation of a new inspection program to address trash on private properties that don't
drain to full capture systems; and the expansion of on -land trash cleanup programs.
• Scenario 4 — Implementation of six (6) types of trash source control measures and no high-flow
capacity (large) or catch basin insert (small) trash full capture systems.
Based on discussions with City staff, a preliminary draft eight-year trash control measure action plan was
developed that includes trash control measures described in scenario 1, which was identified as the most
cost-effective control measure scenario of those evaluated. Trash control measure scenario 1 provides
the highest level of confidence in achieving the mandated stormwater trash management goals
established by the State Water Board. The eight-year action plan includes preliminary City staff resource
needs and cost estimates for implementing capital/initial and annual/ongoing tasks and serves as a draft
road map for addressing these stormwater trash management goals by the December 2030 deadline.
March 2023 11
Ston-nw t r Trash Control Measures EvaWt€Orr
FIGURE 1. PRIORITY LAND USE (PLU) AREAS AND TRASH MANAGEMENT AREAS (TMAS) IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY OF REDDING AS
GENERATING MODERATE OR HIGH TRASH LEVELS.................................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 2. OVERVIEW OF THE LOCATIONS AND CATCHMENTS FOR FOUR HIGH PRIORITY POTENTIAL LARGE TRASH FULL CAPTURE SYSTEMS IN
THECITY OF REDDING........................................................................................................................................................ 8
FIGURE 3. OVERVIEW OF THE LOCATIONS OF 655 POTENTIAL SMALL TRASH FULL CAPTURE SYSTEMS IN THE CITY OF REDDING, AS IDENTIFIED
IN THE TRASH FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM FEASIBILITY EVALUATION (SEE APPENDIX B)................................................................... 12
FIGURE 4. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTIES THAT GENERATE BASELINE MODERATE, HIGH OR VERY HIGH TRASH LEVELS AND THEREFORE
WOULD BE POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO IMPLEMENTING NEW ENHANCED TRASH CONTROLS ON PRIVATE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF
REDDING....................................................................................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 5. OVERVIEW OF THE LOCATIONS FOR 312 POTENTIAL CURB -INLET SCREENS IN THE CITY OF REDDING....................................... 20
TABLE 1. CITY OF REDDING BASELINE TRASH GENERATION LEVELS FOR PLU AND NON-PLU AREAS.........................................................
2
TABLE 2. CITY OF REDDING PRIORITY LAND USE (PLU) ACRES IN EACH BASELINE TRASH GENERATION CATEGORY.
4
TABLE 3. PRELIMINARY PLANNING -LEVEL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR THE PLANNING, INSTALLATION, AND OPERATION OF LARGE TRASH FULL
CAPTURE SYSTEMS AT FOUR LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF REDDING.............................................................................................
9
TABLE 4. PRELIMINARY PLANNING -LEVEL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR THE PLANNING, INSTALLATION, AND OPERATION OF SMALL TRASH FULL
CAPTURE SYSTEMS AT 655 LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF REDDING............................................................................................
13
TABLE 5. PRELIMINARY PLANNING -LEVEL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR CREATING AND IMPLEMENTING ATRASH INSPECTION PROGRAM TO ADDRESS
TRASH LEVELS ON PRIVATE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF REDDING............................................................................................
16
TABLE 6. PRELIMINARY PLANNING -LEVEL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING 312 CURB -INLET SCREENS IN THE CITY OF
REDDING.......................................................................................................................................................................
21
TABLE 7. PRELIMINARY PLANNING -LEVEL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR EXPANDED ON -LAND CLEANUPS IN THE CITY OF REDDING......................
23
TABLE 8. PRELIMINARY PLANNING -LEVEL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR ENHANCING PUBLIC CONTAINER/BIN MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY OF
REDDING.......................................................................................................................................................................
26
TABLE 9. PRELIMINARY PLANNING -LEVEL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR AN ENHANCED CITY-WIDE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAM
INTHE CITY OF REDDING..................................................................................................................................................
28
TABLE 10. PRELIMINARY PLANNING -LEVEL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING A SINGLE -USE PLASTIC FOOD SERVICE
WAREORDINANCE..........................................................................................................................................................
30
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE AND TRASH REDUCTION BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING POTENTIAL
NEW OR ENHANCED TRASH CONTROL MEASURES..................................................................................................................
31
TABLE 12. IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS FOR NEW/ENHANCED TRASH CONTROL MEASURES DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF THE TRASH
AMENDMENTS (I.E., FULL CAPTURE OR EQUIVALENT IN ALL PLU AREAS) IN THE CITY OF REDDING...............................................
32
TABLE 13. PRELIMINARY PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPLEMENTING SCENARIO 1..............................................................
33
TABLE 14. PRELIMINARY PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPLEMENTING SCENARIO 2..............................................................
33
TABLE 15. PRELIMINARY PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPLEMENTING SCENARIO 3.
34
TABLE 16. PRELIMINARY PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPLEMENTING SCENARIO 4.
35
TABLE 17. SUMMARY TABLE OF PRELIMINARY PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR TRASH CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
SCENARIOS DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE TRASH REDUCTION GOAL MANDATED BY THE STATEWIDE TRASH AMENDMENTS ..................
36
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF TASKS IN 10 -YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF REDDING........................................................................
38
TABLE 19. ESTIMATED CITY OF REDDING CONSULTANT/CAPITAL COSTS AND STAFFING RESOURCE NEEDS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE 10 -YEAR
ACTIONPLAN.................................................................................................................................................................40
A- CITY OF REDDING BASELINE TRASH GENERATION MAPS AND TRASH MANAGEMENT AREAS (TMAS)
B - TRASH FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM FEASIBILITY EVALUATION - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
March 2023iv
Ston-nw t r Trash Control Measures EvaIuat€Orr
i • i.
BASMAA
BAY AREA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES ASSOCIATION
BIDS
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
CALTRANS
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CPSS
CONNECTOR PIPE SCREENS
FY
FISCAL YEAR
GIS
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
GSRD
GROSS SOLIDS REMOVAL SYSTEMS
NDS
HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR
MRP
MUNICIPAL REGIONAL NPDES PERMIT FOR STORMWATER
NPDES
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
NSBB/DSBB
NUTRIENT SEPARATING BAFFLE BOXES
0&M
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVTAS
ON -LAND VISUAL ASSESSMENTS
ROW
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
SFBRWQCB
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
TMAs
TRASH MANAGEMENT AREAS
March 2023
Storrnwatea Trash Control Measures EvaIuat€can
1.1 Purpose
This memorandum serves as the final deliverable of the Trash Control Measure Planning Project being
conducted by ECA, Inc. (EOA) for the City of Redding (City). The goal of this project is to identify the costs
and benefits of a range of trash control measures that have shown to be effective in reducing trash in
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). If implemented, these controls would assist the City in
reducing trash discharged from its MS4 and help address the trash reduction goal mandated by the State
Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board) Trash Amendments. The Trash Amendments state
that each applicable MS4 in California must effectively reduce trash in stormwater discharges by the year
2030. This memorandum is the culmination of previous tasks conducted as part of the Trash Control
Measure Planning Project for the City and summarizes the results of all previous task deliverables, which
are included as appendices (e.g., Trash Full Capture System Feasibility Evaluation).
1.2 Background
The City is subject to requirements of the Trash Amendments adopted by the State Water Board in 2015.
The Trash Amendments were added to the statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface
Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries (ISWEBE), which effectively serves as the water quality control plan
for inland surface water throughout California. Section 2.2 of the ISWEBE states:
"Trash shall not be present in inland surface waters, enclosed bays, estuaries, and along shorelines
or adjacent areas in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses or cause nuisance."
The Trash Amendments also require MS4s to effectively reduce trash from their discharges by
implementing: 1) Track 1- trash full capture systems, certified by the State Water Board in their MS4; or
2) Track 2 - combinations of trash control measures that are equivalent to full capture systems (i.e., full
capture system equivalency). Implementation has to occur in predefined trash generating areas called
Priority Land Use (PLU) areas.2 As described in its Stormwater Trash Control Implementation Plan (City of
Redding 2018), the City has decided to implement the "Track 2" compliance approach to reduce trash in
PLU areas, which is defined in Section 2.1 of the Trash Amendments as the:
"The implementation of a plan with a combination of full capture systems, multi -benefit projects,
institutional controls, and/or other treatment controls to achieve full capture system equivalency. "
To assist in implementing the Track 2 approach, the City established baseline trash generation levels for
all PLU areas draining to its MS4 by conducting On -land Visual Trash Assessments (OVTAs). Trash
1 Full Capture Systems are those that trap all particles that are 5 millimeter (mm) or greater and have a design treatment capacity that is either: a)
not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the subdrainage area, or b) appropriately sized and designed to
carry at least the same flows as the corresponding storm drain. The 5 -mm size limit corresponds with the diameter of a cigarette butt. Over 40
types of full capture systems have been certified by the State Water Board to -date.
I Priority land uses are defined as those developed sites, facilities, or land uses (i.e., not simply zoned land uses) within the MS4 permittee's
jurisdiction from which discharges of trash are regulated by these trash provisions as follows: (1) High -Density Residential: all land uses with at
least ten (10) developed dwelling units/acre; (2) Industrial: land uses where the primary activities on the developed parcels involve product
manufacture, storage, or distribution (e.g., manufacturing businesses, warehouses, equipment storage lots, junkyards, wholesale businesses,
distribution centers, or building material sales yards); (3) Commercial: land uses where the primary activities on the developed parcels involve the
sale or transfer of goods or services to consumers (e.g., business or professional buildings, shops, restaurants, theaters, vehicle repair shops,
etc.); (4) Mixed Urban: land uses where high-density residential, industrial, and/or commercial land uses predominate collectively (i.e., are
intermixed). (5) Public Transportation Stations: facilities or sites where public transit agencies' vehicles load or unload passengers or goods (e.g.,
bus stations and stops).
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures EvaWtion
generation categories (low, moderate, high and very high) were assigned to PLU areas based on the
results of these assessments, which were conducted on a combination of PLU areas and public right-of-
way (ROW) areas adjacent to the PLU areas. This memorandum reflects the results of assessments
conducted in 2017/2018 and 2020/2021.
As described in the City's Stormwater Trash Control Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan), those
PLU areas identified as generating low levels of trash (i.e., a consistent OVTA score of "A"), have achieved
the trash full capture system equivalency (FSCE) standard established by the Trash Amendments. PLU
areas that generate moderate, high and very high baseline trash generation levels that need additional
reduction are depicted on the City's baseline trash generation map (Figure 1), which reflects the results of
reassessments conducted in 2020/2021. Higher resolution baseline generation maps are included in
Appendix A. Baseline acreage and the relative (%) annual trash loading from each PLU category are
summarized in Table 1. Details on the methods used to derive annual trash loading are included in the
City's Implementation Plan.
Table 1. City of Redding baseline trash generation levels for PLU and Non-PLU areas.
Land Use
PLU Area Trash
Generation Category (acres)
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Unknown a
Commercial
457
586
507
1,550
High Density Residential
270
206
127
603
Industrial
287
173
105
565
Mixed Urban
--
--
--
Public Transportation Stationsb
< 0.1
2
5
--
< 0.1
7
Totals
1014
967
744
0
c 0.1
2,725
% of Baseline Trash Generation (PLU Areas)c
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Unknown,,
Commercial
0.0%
14.9%
51.4%
66.3%
High Density Residential
0.0%
5.2%
12.9%
18.1%
Industrial
0.0%
4.4%
10.6%
15.0%
Mixed Urban
--
--
--
Public Transportation Stationsb
< 0.1%
< 0.1%
0.5%
--
< 0.1%
0.6%
Totals
0.0%
24.5%
75.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0010
'Unknown areas refers to areas not assigned a baseline trash generation category. These areas include bus stops that were not assessed and
CalTrans jurisdictional areas.
e Public transportation stations are bus stops, which are assumed to each be 200 ft' on average.
Trash generation is based on the volume of trash generated per acre of land. Generation rates differ between moderate, high and very high
areas. For additional information, see the City's Implementation Plan.
To allow for a more geographically refined approach to tracking trash control measure implementation
and associated trash reductions over time, the City was subdivided into Trash Management Areas (IMAs).
The City's TMA boundaries are also illustrated on Figure 1 and trash generation levels for each TMA are
provided in Table 2.
March 2023 2
Stora-nwater Trash Control Measures EvaWtion
Trash Generation Category M. S.—
Priority Land Use (PLU) ay R. d. Cat R� , g S -t� ComyF79 Existing Full Capture System Cay B—dsr=
�ay of Redamg
Land Use. Cit, of Redding
Moderate Creek t a MPC—ted BY:
EOA ,L
High E,, 7 ate: In
Water Body
D— 1— 20, 2021
Trash Management Area (TMA) Redding C4ty Boundary 0 05 1 2 Miles
Figure 1. Priority Land Use (PLU) areas and Trash Management Areas (TMAs) identified by the City of Redding as
generating moderate or high trash levels.
March 2023 3
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Table 2. City of Redding Priority Land Use (PLU) acres in each baseline trash generation category.
Trash Management
Area TMA
PLU Area Trash Generation
(acres)
% of Baseline
Trash in
a!! PCU Areas
Non-PLU Areas
(acres)
Total Area
(,PLU and Non-PLU)
Low
Moderate
High
g
Subtotal '
TMA01
108
201
131
440
19.4%
1,223
1,663
TMA02
46
15
19
80
2.0%
434
514
TMA03
61
127
265
453
22.9%
306
759
TMA04
67
149
68
284
12.7%
145
429
TMA05
69
37
50
156
5.1%
405
561
TMA06
56
70
63
189
7.8%
664
853
TMA07
142
226
64
432
17.0%
1,361
1,793
TMA08
67
98
54
219
8.9%
1,344
1,563
TMA09
20
9
--
29
0.5%
435
464
TMA10
167
4
24
195
1.6%
436
631
TMA11
10
6
--
16
0.4%
198
214
TMA12
1
1
--
2
0.1%
156
158
TMA13
40
4
1
45
0.3%
113
158
TMA14
66
7
--
73
0.4%
1,200
1,273
TMA15
94
13
5
112
1.1%
27,804
27,916
Totals
1,014
967
744
2,725
100.0%
36,221
38,946
Stoo,rnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Types of New or Enhanced Trash Control Measures Evaluated
While the City currently implements a number of trash control measures that aid in managing trash levels
in its MS4, because baseline levels in PLU areas have not yet achieved a consistent low trash generation
level (i.e., full capture equivalent) as depicted on the City's baseline map, the City is required to
implement new or enhanced measures to reach the mandated stormwater trash management goal by
2030, as established by the Trash Amendments. After conducting: 1) a survey of City staff to document
existing trash controls and interest in different types of enhance control measures; 2) field visits to
identify primary/dominant trash sources; and 3) a Trash Full Capture System Feasibility Analysis (see
Appendix B) to identify the most cost-effective full capture approaches to address trash in the City,
potential trash reduction strategies that the City should consider implementing have been identified and
are the focus of this cost -benefit evaluation. These strategies are further described later in this
document, but include the following types of trash control measures:
• Large Trash Full Capture Systems
• Small Trash Full Capture Systems
• Trash Inspections on Private Properties
• Curb -inlet screens on Inlets in the Public ROW (with existing street sweeping)
• Expanded On -Land Cleanups
• Enhanced Public Container/Bin Management
• Enhanced City -Wide Public Education and Outreach
• Municipal Ordinance — Single -use Plastic Food Service Ware
Each of these trash control measures is described and the estimated costs and trash reduction benefits
associated with each is provided.
This section describes each potential new or enhanced trash control measure evaluated. The extent to
which the City has implemented the control measure to -date, the potential future implementation of the
control measure, the estimated trash reduction benefits of existing and new/enhanced trash control
measure implementation, and the estimated costs of implementing the new/enhanced control measure
(as described) are summarized in this section. Please note the following:
The trash reduction benefits associated with potential new/enhanced controls that are
summarized in this section should be considered preliminary estimates, as they are based on a
combination of the City's baseline trash generation map and best professional judgement based
on the current understanding of the effectiveness of each control measure.
Cost estimates included in this section and in Section 3 should be considered preliminary
planning -level estimates and may not include all costs associated with the design, planning,
purchase, construction/installation, implementation, and operation and maintenance associated
with the control measure. Assumptions associated with estimating the costs for each control
measure are described.
• Costs estimates presented are based on the most readily available information at the time that
this evaluation was conducted, including staffing rates (fully burdened) that were provided by the
March 2023 5
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
City. Comparisons of base/initial costs (e.g., design, planning, purchasing, and
constructing/installing), annual ongoing costs (e.g., implementation and operation/maintenance
and replacement for full capture systems), and 50 -year life cycle costs were developed using this
information to assist the City in evaluating the most cost-effective approaches to achieving
mandated trash load reductions. More detailed cost estimates will likely be needed should the
City decide to move forward with the implementation of one or more of the control measures
evaluated.
2.1 Large Trash Full Capture Systems
Large trash full capture systems are devices that can address trash from an entire stormwater catchment
area (including storm drains on private property). These systems provide a single location for
maintenance, potentially reducing operation and maintenance costs over time. Two disadvantages of
large systems are the relatively high capital and construction costs, which require a large initial funding
source, and the higher instance of subsurface utility conflicts at desired locations within highly urbanized
areas. Additionally, large systems installed in open channels may be infeasible due to wildlife habitat
concerns or at a minimum require environmental permitting, which may increase planning costs.
There are four general types of large trash full capture systems - hydrodynamic separators, gross solids
removal systems, baffle boxes, and netting systems. The selection of a large system will depend on the
characteristics of a specific location to allow for construction and maintenance, the extent of hydraulic
impacts caused by the system, the potential for environmental permitting, and the magnitude trash load
reduction that the system will achieve. Additional information on the types of large full capture systems
can be found in the City's Trash Full Capture System Feasibility Evaluation (Full Capture Evaluation), which
is included as Appendix B.
Maintenance of most types of large full capture systems is generally performed using a vacuum -assisted
(i.e., vactor) truck. For netting systems, nets are removed via a crane or truck with a hydraulic boom, and
replaced accordingly. At a minimum, maintenance is performed at least once per year to ensure that the
device consistently maintains the full capture standard. Manufacture recommended maintenance
frequencies (if available) should followed so that the device is operating as designed during all storm
events.
Existing and Planned Large Trash Full Capture Systems
No large trash full capture systems are currently known to exist in the City. At the time this evaluation
was conducted, the City did not have concrete plans to install one or more large trash full capture
systems.
Potential Large Trash Full Capture Systems
In the Full Capture Evaluation (Appendix B), all stormwater catchments in the City were evaluated via a
desktop analysis for the feasibility of installing large trash full capture systems. Trash reduction benefits
and preliminary costs for installing/constructing and maintaining/operating large full capture systems
were evaluated for thirty (30) potential locations. Based on the estimated costs and trash reduction
benefits, three locations (i.e., FTC01C-1, FTC01C-3, and FTC04E) were identified as high priority sites and
it was recommended that the City further evaluate the feasibility of implementing large capture systems.
Through further discussion with City staff on the feasibility of implementing large full capture systems at
the three sites, two of the three sites (i.e., FTC01C-3 and FTC04E) were included in this broader control
measures evaluation. The other site (i.e., FTC01C-1) was not further considered due to site-specific
complexities and feasibility issues identified by the City. Two additional sites (i.e., FTC01B and FTC03A-1),
March 20236
Stora-nwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
however, were also included in this broader control measures evaluation based on input from the City.
The locations and catchments for the four sites evaluated in this broader control measures evaluation for
large full capture systems are included in Figure 2. Should large capture systems be installed at these
four, the City would achieve an estimated 39% trash reduction from PLU areas.
Based on the desktop analysis and preliminary field work conducted at the four sites, netting systems
appear to be the most optimal type of large trash full capture system for open channel locations (i.e.,
FTC01C-3 and FTC04E) and baffle boxes are the most optimal type of system for locations where the
installation would occur underground (i.e., FTC01B and FTC01C-3). Examples of these systems are
included in the images below. Additional details on each of these types of systems are included in
Appendix B.
Example Netting System
StormTra p - Tras hTra p
(www.stormtrap.com)
Cost Estimates
Example Baffle Box System
Bioclean Debris Separating Baffle Box System
(www.biocleanenvironmental.com)
The preliminary, planning -level cost estimates associated with the planning, design, installation, and
operation of the four large trash capture systems are presented in Table 3. Additional detail regarding
locations, types and assumptions associated with these potential large trash full capture systems are
included in Appendix B.
March 2023
Stora-nwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Trash Generation Category D t.... sr,—
Priority Land Use (PLED)' R;da City f R ddi, g S h-te c ffr my
0 Potential Large Ful[ Capture Systems C B—dsrle.: Cii
N Lard U— City ¢f ReGdi¢.G
Moderate Potental Large Full Capture System Nbp Created By:
,¢ Drainage Area E EO,y1—
IN tllgh
:Greek De—ber 20, 20121::.
Redding City Boundary Water Body 4 05... 1 2
__._.w. Miles
Figure 2. Overview of the locations and catchments for four high priority potential large trash full capture systems in
the City of Redding.
March 20238
torrnwaterTrash Control Meaaires Evaluation
Table 3. Preliminary planning -level costs estimates for the planning, installation, and operation of large trash full capture systems at four locations in the City of Redding.
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023
Summary of Enhancement
City Staff
Base/Initial Tasks
On-going/Annual
Tasks i
Estimated
Annual
Estimated Staffing
Annual
Task
Geographical Span
Assumptions
Implementing Task
Staffing
FTE Rate
Estimated
(Annual)
FTE Rate
Estimated
Portion of
Portion
of Implementation
(Fully
Costs
(Fully
Costs
Hours
FTE,
Burdened)
Hours
of FT&I
Burdened)
Contractor constructs/installs systems
Capital costs of system
at four locations (FTC01B, FTC01C-3,
design, installation,
FTC03A-1, and FTC04E) identified as
NA
$4,322,000
construction, and
highest priority by City staff. A total of
contingency
two (2) in-line netting and two (2) baffle
box systems.
Based on feasibility evaluation, City staff
City develops concept
has enough information to develop and
and releases bid/RFP for
release bid package for design/build of
City Project Coordinator-
1500
0.75
$260,900
$195,675
large full capture systems
the systems. City staff assist with design
Storm Drains
at all large device
of system.
locations listed in the Full
Trash Capture Evaluation
All four potential
City Project Coordinator staff time only
and manages
large full capture
needed for the first two (2) years (i.e.,
City Storm Drain Utility
40
0.02
$168,700
$3,374
--
--
--
--
construction contract.
system catchment
Base/Initial Tasks). No on-going costs
Supervisor
locations (i.e., sites
FTC01B, FTC01C-3,
associated with this task.
City develops standard
City Storm Drain Supervisor with
City Storm Drain Utility
400
0.2
$168,700
$33,740
--
--
--
--
operating procedure for
FTC03A-1, and
assistance from City Lead Storm Drain
Supervisor
maintenance of large
FTC04E).
Maintenance Worker develops standard
system.
operating procedure for maintenance of
City Lead Storm Drain
120
0.06
$103,240
$6,194
large system and conducts initial
Maintenance Worker
training of field staff.
One (1) maintenance event each year
City Lead Storm Drain
378
0.19
$103,240
$19,512
per baffle box system; Four (4)
Maintenance Worker
City Storm Drain
maintenance events each year per
City operates and
netting system. One (1) vactor truck
Maintenance Worker -
756
0.38
$36,100
$13,646
maintains system
operator and three (3) maintenance
Temporary
Vactor Truck Operator
378
0.19
$103,240
$19,512
staff per maintenance event. A total of
seven (7) hours per event
Overhead Costs
Oversight of all tasks above
City Assistant Director ofPublic
20
0.01
$330,380
$3,304
40
0.02
$330,380
$6,608
Works
Totals
2080
1.04
$4,564,287
1552
0.78
$59,278
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
2.2 Small Trash Full Capture Systems
Screening systems that are installed in stormwater catch basins (or drop inlets) are commonly known as
catch basin inserts (CBls). CBIS are placed inside a catch basin to prevent trash, organic material (e.g.
leaves and twigs), and sediment from entering the storm drain outflow pipe within the catch basin. There
are two general designs of CBIS, surface inlet baskets/screens and outlet screens. Surface inlet
baskets/screens are attached to the side
walls or lip of the catch basin, while
outlet screens are placed in the catch
basin in front of the outlet pipe. An
illustration of an outlet screen is
provided to the right. A wide variety of
CBI designs exist, mostly in the form of
outlet screens (e.g., connector pipe
screens). CBIS that use filtering walls or
filter media are not applicable for
trapping trash and do not meet the
trash full capture standard. As a result,
the term "insert" is not necessarily
synonymous with trash full capture.
Maintenance of CBIS is performed using Outlet screen -type of catch basin insert trash full capture system
(Courtesy of Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District)
a vacuum -assisted (i.e., vactor) truck or
manually with a shovel or clamshell. At a minimum, maintenance is performed at least once per year to
ensure that the device consistently maintains the full capture standard. If the device is observed to have a
plugged or blinded screen or is greater than 50 percent full during a maintenance event, the maintenance
frequency should be increased so that the device is neither plugged nor more than half full at the next
maintenance event.
Existing Small Full Capture Systems
At the time this evaluation was conducted, two small full capture systems were installed in storm drain
inlets located in the City of Redding. These devices were installed in new developments and address areas
identified as low trash generating on the City's baseline trash generation map.
Potential Additional Small Full Capture Systems
Based on the GIS data provided by the City, there are roughly 1,315 storm drain inlets in the public ROW
that drain areas with moderate or high trash generation in the City. Of these inlets, it is estimated that
roughly 270 will not support small full capture systems due to the configuration of the catch basins or the
prohibitively large size of the upstream drainage area. Therefore, it may be possible to install inlet -based
small trash full capture systems in a total of 1,045 inlets that drain moderate or high trash generating
areas. Based on the desktop analysis described in Appendix B, it is estimated that the City could install up
to 655 small trash full capture systems in a portion of these 1,045 inlets and address all moderate and
March 2023 10
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
high trash generating areas that drain to the public ROW.3 The locations of these 655 systems are
illustrated Figure 3 and in Appendix B.
Of the 655 small full capture systems, 287 are located within the four catchment areas where large full
capture systems appear to be the most -cost effective types of full capture systems (see Appendix B). This
leaves 368 small full capture systems located outside of these four large full capture system catchments
where small full capture systems could be installed.
Cost Estimates for Enhanced Actions
The preliminary, planning -level cost estimates associated with the planning, design, installation, and
operation of the potential 655 small capture full trash capture devices throughout the City are presented
in Table 4. Additional detail regarding the location, type and assumptions associated with these potential
devices is included in Appendix B.
3 Because some inlets are connected by underground pipes (i.e., daisy -chained), devices placed in these 655 inlets will likely
address trash from the land areas draining to the 1,045 inlets in the public ROW.
March 2023 11
Trash Generation Category
Priority Land Use (PLU)
Moderate
10 High
0 Redding City Boundary
Stora-nwator Trash Control Measures Evaluation
® Potential Small :Pull Capture Location
11 Creak
Water Batty
Figure 3. Overview of the locations of 655 potential small trash full capture systems in the City of Redding, as
identified in the Trash Full Capture System Feasibility Evaluation (see Appendix B).
March 2023 12
Pats S..—.
f Re.ir.9 sheets Cnu.:nty
R.,ada. C b dd
Cz Bo tl nes. City fRedd ng
Np�
Land use: Cityaf Redd n:g
1M1' E
F CeeaYed BY:.
P .1n
Y
�
Date:
neem leer 24;.20Z'1
0
05 1 2
Miles
Figure 3. Overview of the locations of 655 potential small trash full capture systems in the City of Redding, as
identified in the Trash Full Capture System Feasibility Evaluation (see Appendix B).
March 2023 12
5torrnwaterTrash Control Measures Evaluation
Table 4. Preliminary planning -level costs estimates for the planning, installation, and operation of small trash full capture systems at 655 locations in the City of Redding.
Summary of
Enhancement
Base/Initial
Tasks
On-going/Annual
Tasks
Estimated
Estimated
Staffing
Geographical Span
City Staff Implementing Task
Staffing
Annual
Estimated
(Annual)
Annual
Estimated
Task
of Implementation
Assumptions
FTE Rate
Costs
FTE Rate
Costs
Portion of
Portion of
Hours
(Fully Burdened)
Hours
(Fully Burdened)
FTEa
FTEa
655 public ROW
City Project Coordinator- Storm
500
0.25
$260,900
$65,225
Drains
City develops
inlets in Moderate
City Storm Drain Utility Supervisor
8
0.004
$168,700
$675
--
--
--
--
concept and
and High trash
City Lead Storm Drain Maintenance
80
0.04
$103,240
$4,130
releases bid/RFP
generating areas
All planning tasks conducted by City staff
for small
that can support
Worker
City Storm Drain Maintenance
capture systems
small full capture
Worker - Temporary (calculations
160
0.08
$36,100
$2,888
systems
assume 2 workers)
Capital costs of
• Contractor installs devices
system,
• Capital costs estimated to be $1,000 per
installation, and
device (see Appendix B)
Materials Costs
$655,000
$26,200
contingency
• Replacement of each inlet twice over a 50 -
year timeframe (i.e., average replacement
655 Public ROW
rate of 26 devices/yr) at $1,000/device
City develops
Inlets
standard
City Storm Drain Utility Supervisor with
City Storm Drain Utility Supervisor
80
0.04
$168,700
$6,748
operating
assistance from City Lead Storm Drain
procedure for
Maintenance Worker develops standard
maintenance of
operating procedure for maintenance of
City Lead Storm Drain Maintenance
24
0.01
$103,240
$1,032
small capture
small capture systems.
Worker
systems.
• 655 locations
City Lead Storm Drain Maintenance
• 4 maintenance events per year per device
Worker/ Vacuum Assisted Truck
2620
1.31
$103,240
$135,244
All public ROW
. Maintenance event (1 lead worker/
Operator
City maintains
inlets where Small
Vacuum Assisted Truck Operator and 1
City Storm Drain Maintenance
systems
Capture Systems
maintenance staff)
Worker - Temporary
2620
1.31
$36,100
$47,291
are installed
• 1 hours per maintenance event
• Acquisition of 1 Vacuum Assisted Truck
Vacuum Assisted Truck
$630,000
$8,200
Overhead Costs
NA
Oversight of all tasks above
City Assistant Director of PublicWorks
20
0.01
$330,380
$2,185
40
0.02
$339,380
$6,608
Totals
872
0.43
--
$1,369,002
5,280
2.64
$223,543
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year
March 2023 13
StonmmaterTrash Control Measures Evaluation
2.3 Trash Inspections on Private Properties
Based on preliminary source investigations conducted as part of this project, private properties with
commercial, industrial, or high-density residential land uses remain important sources of trash to the
City's IVIS4. Stormwater and trash generated on these private properties drain to either storm drain inlets
located in the adjacent public R0VV or to private storm drain inlets located on the properties. To address
these sources, municipalities in the San Francisco Bay Area have successfully instituted Trash Inspection
Programs on private properties to address trash contributions from these properties. The trash inspection
program typically entails the periodic assessment of trash levels on properties by City staff using an On -
land Visual Assessment (OVTA) protocol and coordinating with property owners/managers to effectively
manage trash levels. If trash levels are above an OVTA "A" score on the property during an inspection,
then the City works with the property owners/managers to institute trash control measures to improve
trash |eve|s, until ultimately consistent OVTA "A" score can be achieved. Should trash levels not
improve, then the City would utilize its enforcement capabilities established through its stormwater
ordinance to implement progressive enforcement actions, as necessary. Enforcement could entail
requiring property owners to install and maintain trash full capture systems, sothat the mandated trash
reduction goal offull capture orequivalent isachieved onthe property.
Existing Inspection Program
Industrial inspections are currently conducted by the City at a portion of the commercial and industrial
facilities in the City of Redding to evaluate the proper functioning of restaurant grease traps and oil and
water separators. The adequacy of trash management activities occurring on the property is not typically
identified orevaluated aspart ofthese inspections.
Potential Trash Inspection Program
Atraoh inspection program could be implemented by the City to address trash generated on private
properties. The trash inspection program could entail the following:
Updating the City's existing stonnwoterordinance iomore clearly require property owners to
maintain trash generation levels aiu low level oralternatively install and maintain trash full
capture systems to address trash levels on their properties;
2. Formally adding anOVTAcomponent toexisting standard operating procedures used during
industrial compliance inspections conducted bythe City and providing periodic training to
inspectors unUVTAs;and
l Conducting targeted trash inspections at additional properties that generate significant levels of
trash that are not currently inspected as part of the industrial compliance inspections using OVTA
protocols, providing periodic training to inspectors on OVTAs.
Existing industrial compliance inspections would continue tooccur atthe same frequency and atrash
component (i.e., OVTA) would be added to these inspections. If a property inspected has not achieved an
"A" OVTA score, then the property would be reinspected at a set timeframe to ensure improvement in
trash levels. For those properties where moderate (B) or high ([) OVTA scores were observed,
enforcement and follow up inspections would be conducted by the City at a higher frequency until an "A"
score is attained.
Properties not currently included in the stormwater inspection pool would be inspected once every 5-
years,un|essthepropertyachievedanOVTAscoreof|essthanan^A" For those properties where OVTA
scores worse than an "A" were observed, enforcement and follow up inspections would be conducted by
the City at a higher frequency. If an "A" score is not attained, requiring property owners to install their
own full capture systems would be a potential step that the City could take, should other enforcement
actions not succeed in reducing trash levels on the properties. The locations ofproperties where atrash
inspection program could beimplemented isincluded inFigure 4.
Cost Estimates for Enhanced Actions
Adding OVTAs to existing industrial compliance inspections will add additional time for each inspection,
and thus would require additional inspection resources. Additionally, inspecting a larger pool of
businesses and other private properties would also require new resources. These increases in the number
of inspections conducted each year by the City would also be accompanied by additional costs associated
with communications to applicable property owners to discuss/require improved trash management, the
management of inspection data, and overhead/oversight costs. A preliminary, planning -level cost
estimate associated with the implementation of Trash Inspection Program is presented in Table 5.
Maich 20.23 14
Land Use Classification
Priority Land Use Parcels (PLU)
Commercial
Industrial
Resrdent€al High Density
Storer-nwator Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Creek
= water Body
Redding City Boundary
Elata S. rtes:
Rands. City o Radding,. Shasta Caunty
City 6ueontFsrres• City of Redding
R Land U... Citynf Redding
N1 .E gCe In i9y:
?
E4, Inc
[}ate:
December 20, 2021 .
0 05 1 2
Miles
Figure 4. Overview of the private properties that generate baseline moderate, high or very high trash levels and
therefore would be potentially subject to implementing new enhanced trash controls on private properties in the
City of Redding.
cath 202 15
torrnwaterTrash Control Measures Evaluation
Table 5. Preliminary planning -level costs estimates for creating and implementing a trash inspection program to address trash levels on private properties in the City of Redding.
March 2023 16
Base/initial Tasks
On-going/Annual
Tasks
Summary of Enhancement
City Staff
Estimated Staffing
Estimated Staffing
Geographical Span
Implementing Task
Annual FTE Rate
Estimated Costs
(Annual)
Annual FTE RateEstimated
Casts
Portion of
Hours
Portion of
Task
of Implementation
Assumptions
(Fully Burdened)
(Fully Burdened)
Hours
FTEa
FTEa
City Storm Water
Develop and
enforce authority
Management
100
0.10
$321,060
$32,106
All private properties:
gro Pram
to require all
private properties
- in Moderate and High
g
Draft and develop new or refined
Coordinator
that fail to meet an
trash generating areas
ordinance giving Cit the authority to
g g y y
City
Environmental
OVTA `A' score
- have privately owned
p y
require trash management on all
Compliance
40
0.02
$435,380
$8,708
--
--
--
during inspections,
and operated storm
p
private properties
Manager
g
and have privately
drains on their
City Assistant
owned and
property
-failed to meet an
Director of Public
4
0.002
$330,380
$661
operated storm
OVTA'A' score during
Works
drains on their
enhanced or new
City Assistant
property to install
business inspections
Review final ordinance for approval
Director of Public
4
0.002
$330,380
$661
full capture
Works
system(s)
Review final ordinance for approval
City Attorney
4
0.002
$954,200
$1,908
• 240 properties would need to be
inspected.
Add trash
• Inspections would occur on an
inspections (i.e.,
All restaurants:
annual basis.
OVTAs) to existing
- in Moderate and High
• 25% of properties would need
industrial
trash generating areas
follow-up inspections. Assumes 60
City Inspector
135
0.07
$291,040
$19,645
compliance
- Are part of the City's
follow-up inspections would be
inspections
restaurant inspection
needed per year.
conducted at
program
• An additional 0.5 hours per
restaurants
inspection would be needed due to
adding trash inspection component
March 2023 16
tnrrnw ter Trash Control Meaaires EvalU tion
March 2023 17
Base/initial Tasks
Cin-going/Annual
Tasks
Summary of Enhancement
City Staff
'Estimated Staffing
Estimated Staffing
Geographical Span
implementing Task
Annual FTE Rate
Estimated Costs
(Annual)
Annual FTE RateEstimated
Costs
Hours
Portion of
Task
of Implementation
Assumptions
Assumptions
Portion of
(Fully Burdened)
(Fully Burdened)
FTEa
FTE
Conduct trash
All private properties:
. A total of 1,265 properties would
inspections and
- in Moderate and High
need to be inspected over the course
determine if private
trash generating areas
of 9 years 0141/year)
drainage is present
have privately owned
• 25/0 of the properties would need
(i.e., OVTAs) at
applicable
and operated storm
follow-up inspections. Assumes — 35
City Inspector
176
0.1
$291,040
$25,567
properties that are
drains on their
follow-up inspections would be
NOT part of the
property
needed per year
Are NOT part of the
• 1 hour per inspection (including
restaurant
City's restaurant
travel time)
inspection
inspection program
program.
• Assumes communications for
properties being inspected via
restaurant inspections but not
achieving OVTA "A" will be handled
Communications to
All private properties:
via follow-up inspections. No costs
applicable property
- in Moderate and High
for these properties in this line item.
owners to
trash generating areas
• Estimated 25% of properties
discuss/require
- Are NOT part of the
including those that are either part of
City Inspector
40
0.02
$291,040
$5,821
improved trash
City's restaurant
the restaurant inspection program or
management or
inspection program
not part of the restaurant inspection
transition to full
- Are NOT achieving an
program will NOT achieve OVTA "A"
capture.
"A" OVTA score
score by follow-up inspections and
will need to implement full trash
capture or other new controls.
Communication costs for these
properties are in this line item.
Management of
inspection data.
All private properties:
Enter all data
- in Moderate and High
collected via trash
trash generating areas
381 data entries per year
inspections into the
- have privately owned
City Inspector
63
0.03
$291,040
$9,230
excel database.
and operated storm
10 minutes per data entry
Flag facilities that
drains on their
require follow-up
property
inspections
March 2023 17
terrnwaterTrash Control Meaaires EvalUatiran
I
One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023 18
Base/initial Tasks
Cin-going/Annual
Tasks
Summary of Enhancement
City Staff
'Estimated Staffing
Estimated Staffing
Geographical Span
implementing Task
Annual FTE Rate
Estimated Costs
(Annual)
Annual FTE RateEstimated
Costs
Portion of
Task
Assumptions
Assumptions
Portion of
(Fully Burdened)
(Fully Burdened)
of Implementation
Hours
FTEa
FTE
City Storm Water
Management
100
0.05
$321,060
$16,053
60
0.03
$321,060
$9,632
Program
Coordinator
Overhead Costs
NA
Provide oversight of above projects
City
Environmental
40
0.02
$435,380
$8,708
40
0.02
$435,380
$8,708
Compliance
Manager
For properties
Coordinates development of model
where low trash
communications. Identify property
City Storm Water
generation cannot
owners/managers, perform data
Management
40
0.02
$321,060
$6,421
be achieved, notify
analysis and compilation.
Program
all applicable
Coordinator
property
owners/managers
that full capture
systems are
Reviews communications
City Attorney
--
--
--
8
0.004
$954,200
$3,817
required by a
certain date
Totals
292
0.246 i
--
$68,804
562
0.294
-
$88,840
I
One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023 18
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
2.4 Curb -Inlet Screens on Inlets in the Public ROW
Curb inlet screens are treatment devices that block trash from entering a catch basin/inlet. These devices
have some level of trash reduction benefit; however, they have not been well studied and are not
certified/approved as trash full capture systems by the State Water Resources Control Board as full
capture systems. Curb -inlet screens may
be retractable or fixed in place, and
generally have a perforated screen or
evenly spaced bars that are designed to
fit outside of, or immediately within the
storm drain curb opening. Retractable
screens open either manually or
hydraulically when a stormwater runoff
applies enough force on the screen. Since
curb -inlet screens block trash and debris
from entering the storm drain inlet or
storm drain, trash remains in the street
and is removed by regular street
sweeping or other measures.
Curb -inlet Screen
(Courtesy of State of Hawaii Department of Transportation)
Curb -inlet screens in combination with inlet -based full capture systems are currently used as trash control
measures by many municipalities throughout California. Because they are not approved/certified as trash
full capture systems, curb -inlet screens are often used to supplement inlet -based systems by blocking
trash and debris before entering inlets, which reduces the frequency of inlet maintenance. The ability of
curb -inlet screens alone to achieve full capture equivalency (i.e., low trash generation) has not been fully
evaluated until recently.
Curb -inlet screens could benefit the City's trash reduction program by preventing trash from reaching
storm drain inlets/catch basins and being discharged via the City's MS4. It could specifically help inlets in
the City of Redding that drain directly into storm pipes that are larger or have greater flow than a small
full capture device can handle. When properly maintained, curb -inlet screens can be effective at
preventing trash from entering catch basins. Although there is not currently a widely accepted value for
the trash reduction benefits that curb -inlet screens offer, curb -inlet screens have the potential to reduce
a trash generating area to one score below its current trash generation rate (e.g., "B" score to "A" score)
(EOA, In prep).
For this control measure, the installation of curb -inlet screens in moderate trash generating PLU areas
where street sweeping is already occurring at least two times per month is the approach evaluated
below. This control measure only targets moderate trash generating areas; no high trash generating areas
will be treated with curb inlet screens. In the future, curb -inlet screens may be considered as a control
measure for high trash generating areas, however, current studies only determined curb -inlet screen
effective in moderate trash generating areas. A fully encompassing curb -inlet screen implementation
program in moderate trash generating areas could help the City achieve approximately 25% trash
reduction. The acceptable trash reduction benefit associated with curb -inlet screens is currently under
discussion with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board staff and could set some level of precedent on a
state-wide level.
Existing Curb -Inlet Screens
Currently, no curb -inlet screens are installed on storm drain inlets in the City's public ROW.
Potential Installation and location of Curb -Inlet Screens
There are roughly 1,315 inlets in the public ROW that are in areas with moderate or high trash generation
in the City. Of these inlets, an estimated 716 have curb inlets that may support the installation of curb -
inlet screens. This includes some of the inlets that have the potential for small trash full capture systems,
as well as inlets where it does not appear feasible to install/maintain small trash full capture systems. Of
the 716 inlets, 312 inlets drain areas with moderate trash generation and the streets associated with the
inlets have street sweeping that occurs at least two times a month. These 312 inlets serve as the potential
pool where curb -inlet screens could be installed (Figure 5). Of the 312 inlets in the pool, the City could
choose to install curb -inlet screens in all or a portion of these inlets.
Cost Estimates for Enhanced Actions
For the purposes of estimating the costs of implementing a curb -inlet screen program, it is assumed that
the City would purchase and have a vendor install curb -inlet screens on all 312 inlets in the City's public
March 20-23 19
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
ROW. The preliminary, planning -level cost estimates associated with the fabrication, installation, and
operation of the new 312 curb -inlet screen devices are presented in Table 6.
Trash Generation Category
Priority Land Use (PLU) 0 Potential Curb -I Net Screen Location
Moderate Street Sweeping Frequency
High 2! 2x a Month
Greek
Redding Qty Boundary L. Water Body
D.t. Sou—.
R—d. City.fReddj,g Shasta C.-ty
City 3—dan— City Qf Reddimg
N Land J- City ofReddimg
MpCrealed Byc
EOA� enc
Date:
Decein Iyer 24, 2021
0 05 1 2
Miles
Figure 5. Overview of the locations for 312 potential curb -inlet screens in the City of Redding.
Maich 20.23 NaCl
torrnwaterTrash Control Measures Evaluation
Table 6. Preliminary planning -level costs estimates for installing and maintaining 312 curb -inlet screens in the City of Redding.
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 202321
Base/Initial
Tasks
On-going/Annual Tasks
Summary of Enhancement
City Staff
Implementing Task
Estimated Staffing
Annual FTE
Rate
Estimated
Estimated Staffing
(Annual)
Annual FTE
Rate
Task
Geographical Span of
Assumptions
Full
(Fully
Costs(FullyEstimated
Costs
Hours
Portion of
Hours
Portion of
Implementation
Burdened)
Burdened)
FTE
FTE
City develops
concept and
312 public ROW inlets in
City Program
releases bid/RFP
Moderate trash
All planning tasks conducted by City Staff
Coordinator- Storm
200
0.1
$260,900
$26,090
for curb -inlet
generating
Drains
screens
• Contractor installs devices
• Capital costs can range from $400 to $700.
Costs of each inlet screen are assumed to
Vendor fabricates
be $500
and Installs Curb-
312 Public Row Inlets
Materials Cost
$156,000
$6,000
inlet Screens
• Replacement of each inlet device twice
during a 50 -yr timeframe (i.e., average
replacement rate of 12 screens/yr) at
$500/screen
• Contractor fabricates and installs curb -inlet
Oversight of
screens
City Storm Drain
contractor
. City staff oversight over installation,
Utility Supervisor
100
0.05
$168,700
$8,435
installation
Inlets installed in all
public ROW inlets in
Moderate trash
including initial inspection of devices.
On-going oversight
of
generating areas
• 2 inspections per year of each inlet to check
Cit Storm Drain
Y
replacement/repair
for damage and repairs.
Maintenance Worker
104
0.05
$36,100
$1,877
process by
• 10 minutes per inspection
- Temporary
contractor
Oversight of all
City Assistant
NA
Provide oversight of above projects
Director of Public
20
0.01
$330,380
$3,304
20
0.01
$330,380
$3,304
tasks above
Works
Totals
320
0.16
-
$193,829
124 '
0.06
--
$11,181
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 202321
2.5 Expanded On -land Cleanups
Cleanups that remove trash from streets, sidewalks,
and adjacent properties can have a significant impact
on the levels of trash in the City's MS4. On -land
cleanups consist of manual removal of trash by
agency staff, contractors hired as part of an
association or business improvement districts (BIDS),
or volunteers. These cleanups target known trash
generating areas or dumping sites where street
sweepers cannot access or effectively remove trash.
On -land cleanups can help decrease trash levels that
reach MS4s from these trash-prone/less accessible
areas. Based on literature reviews conducted, the
effectiveness of on -land cleanup in reducing trash
Stoi,rnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Members of the Shasta County Sheriffs Alternative Custody
Program assisting in collecting trash from an illegal encampment
(Courtesy of the Redding Police Department)
reaching the stormwater conveyance system has not been evaluated in the context of FCSE. That said,
conducting consistent on -land cleanups could conceptually sustain an improved level of trash (i.e., low
generation) in areas with moderate or high baseline trash levels. The magnitude (frequency) and extent
(location) to which cleanups would need to be conducted to observe reductions in trash to acceptable
levels (i.e., FCSE) is likely dependent upon the baseline level of trash generation that occurs in the area.
The higher the trash generation, the more frequent trash would need to be removed to achieve FCSE.
The costs associated with on -land cleanups will be site-specific and dependent on the type (e.g., agency
staff, contractor or volunteers) and number of individuals needed for the cleanup events, and the
frequency of cleanups that would need to occur. Reductions associated with the cleanups would need to
be observed via OVTAs conducted by City staff or contractors.
An estimate of the trash reduction benefits of implementing an enhanced/expanded on -land cleanup
program is generally unknown but could be estimated based on a set of assumptions regarding the
frequency and extent of the cleanup activities, and the baseline trash generation levels within the areas
where the expanded cleanup program is being implemented.
Existing On -land Cleanup Program
The City has a number of active on -land cleanup activities currently underway. There is an Adopt -a -Block
Program in TMA 1 (downtown) where citizens or businesses can commit to cleaning trash up on a specific
City block. This program currently covers roughly 6.5 curb miles of streets. A Business Improvement
District (BID) that funds maintenance for landscaping and keeping the downtown area clean is also active
in TMA 1. Additionally, the City's Solid Waste Team removes trash from illegal dumping sites or homeless
encampments on a periodic basis. The City uses the community work program, which gives those that are
incarcerated the option to clean up trash instead of spending their days in prison, to assist with homeless
and illegal dumping cleanup events. Other cleanup programs are conducted by the City in collaboration
with Bethel School (known as City Project) and local fly-fishing groups, and most frequently focus on
cleanups in park and within rivers.
Potential Expansion of On -land Cleanups
Enhancements to the existing on -land cleanup programs in the City could involve reinforcing and
expanding the current Adopt -a -Block program to the other areas of the City with a goal of another 10
curb miles being adopted and cleaned. An Adopt -a Drain program could also be developed and managed
in parallel with the Adopt -a -Block program. Additional blocks in TMA 1 would benefit most, while TMA 2
and TMA 6 appear like they could also use an Adopt -a -Block and/or Adopt -a -Drain program. Additionally,
there are opportunities to create new BIDS in TMAs 3 and 4 and along Lake Boulevard near the
intersection of Highway 273. Most cleanups currently focus on undeveloped non-PLU areas and therefore
new on -land cleanups would need to pivot to concentrate on moderate and high trash generating areas.
The City could also coordinate additional volunteer cleanups that could take place more frequently (e.g.,
monthly) in targeted neighborhoods. The events could strive to draw local volunteers to spur pride in
their communities and could possibly receive assistance from the Shasta Support Service, a local non-
profit volunteer group. Clean-ups in industrial areas or along arterial roads could also be conducted by
contractors or by employing individuals that are currently homeless. Working with local non-profit
organizations, other cities in California have seen great success with hiring homeless to remove trash
from City streets and areas, and using the opportunity to provide job skills and social services to those
that are currently unsheltered in the community. Enhanced cleanups using homeless individuals would be
most effective in TMAs 7 and 10.
Cost Estimates for Enhanced Actions
The preliminary, planning -level cost estimates associated with the planning and implementation of an
enhanced On -land Cleanup Program throughout the City is presented in Table 7.
March 20413 22
S1orrnmvaterTrash Control MeaauresEva|uation
Table 7. Preliminary planning -level costs estimates for Expanded On -land Cleanups in the City of Redding.
March 2023 23
Base/Initial
Tasks
On-going/Annual
Tasks
Summary of Enhancement
Annual
City Staff
Estimated Staffing
Annual FTE Rate
Estimated
Estimated Staffing
(Annual)
FTE Rate
Estimated
Enhancements
Geographical Span of
Assumptions
Implementing Task
(Fully Burdened)
Costs
(Fully
Costs
Implementation
Hours
Portion of FTEa
Hours
Portion of FTEa
Burdened)
Expand existing
Outreach to new areas for Adopt -a-
City Outreach and
Adopt -a -Block
Block/Adopt-a-Street and citywide
Monitoring
40
0.02
$321,060
$6,421
and develop
TMAs 1, 2 and/or 6
outreach for Adopt -a -Drain
Coordinator
Aclopt-a-Drain
Coordination with volunteers and
City Parks and
40
0.02
$189,500
$3,790
program
program management
Facilities Supervisor
9 Outreach to businesses and hold public
meeting to discuss BID development
City Outreach and
for potential members
Monitoring
40
0,02
$321,060
$6,421
Develop
TMAs 3, 4 and/or 8
9 Assumes 2 -hour meeting with 8 hours
Coordinator
additional BID
(along Lake Blvd)
of preparation and 4 days of outreach
Ongoing BID coordination with
City Outreach and
Monitoring
40
0.02
$321,060
$6,421
businesses
Coordinator
Implement a
Residential and
Staff identify feasible areas for cleaning
Deputy Director of
20
0.01
$307,100
$3,071
Solid Waste
monthly
commercial
volunteer
neighborhoods with
9 Staff will coordinate and participate in
City Outreach and
cleanup in
Moderate and High
new events
Monitoring
96
0.05
$321,060
$16,053
neighborhoods.
trash generating areas
* Assumes 12 events per year at 8 hours
Coordinator
per event, including coordination
Industrial areas and
Employ
along arterial roads in
homeless to
Moderate and High
Increase workload of City Community
City Community
perform on-
trash generating areas
Service Officer by 80 hours per month to
Service Officer
960
0.48
$95,480
$45,830
land cleanups
in TMA 7 and to a
work with homeless
(Police Officer)
of trash
lesser degree in TMA
10
* Pick up and disposal of trash at
City Solid Waste
volunteer and homeless on -land
Truck Driver
60
0.03
$117,460
$3,524
cleanup events
City Solid Waste
* 2 staff to pick up and dispose of trash
Overhead Costs
NA
e Assumes 1 hour per trash pickup
Worker
60
0.03
$79,180
$2,375
Equipment needed for disposal including
Materials cost
$500
bags, gloves and a truck
Provide oversight of above Tasks
Deputy Director of
20
0.01
$307,100
$3,071
Solid Waste
March 2023 23
torrnw t r Trash Control Measures Evaluation
I One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023 24
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures EvaWtion
2.6 Enhanced Public Container/Bin Management
Public container and bin management can significantly reduce the amount of trash observed on publicly
accessible areas that is due to pedestrian litter. Management of these receptacles involves ensuring that
they are in placed in areas most convenient to deposition, that an effective type of receptacle is used,
and that the receptacles are maintained to prevent scavenging and overflow of trash. It is imperative that
public containers are easily accessible and visible to pedestrians to incentivize throwing trash in a
receptacle instead of littering. This means installing enough public containers in high -traffic areas to
reduce the risk of littering.
While traditional outdoor trash receptacles are the most common, Big Belly trash compactors are unique
because they use solar power to compress trash and have been shown to be effective in areas with high
trash volume. Dumpsters are most frequently used by commercial enterprises or apartment complexes
and should be managed properly to ensure that open lids or "dumpster diving" does not contribute to the
spread of trash. Residential bins require pick-up of trash on a regular basis to prevent overflow of trash
and higher potential for scavenging.
Properly managing these public and private trash receptacles can help decrease trash levels that reach
MS4s. Conducting effective and consistent public container and bin management could conceptually
sustain an improved level of trash (i.e., low generation) in areas with moderate or high baseline trash
levels. The magnitude (frequency) and extent (location) to which management would need to be
conducted to observe reductions in trash to acceptable levels (i.e., FCSE) is likely dependent upon the
baseline level of trash generation that occurs in the area. For areas of higher trash generation, more bins
and an increased level of protection and maintenance would be needed to achieve FCSE. The costs
associated with enhanced public container and bin management will be site-specific and dependent on
the type (e.g., agency staff or contractor) and number of individuals needed for the installation and
servicing of the bins. An estimate of the trash reduction benefits of implementing enhanced public
container and bin management is generally unknown, but could be estimated based on a set of
assumptions regarding the frequency and extent of the trash receptacle management, and the baseline
trash generation levels within the areas where the additional receptacles are being implemented.
Existing Public Container/Bin Management Program
There are currently 18 Big Belly trash compactors installed across the
City of Redding. These receptacles have proven to be tamper proof,
which helps prevent scavenging. Big Belly provides maintenance of
these receptacles that the City leases. The City has a Solid Waste app
to answer questions on bin management and report issues. Residents
and businesses can rent dumpsters and drop boxes. The Solid Waste
program has worked hard to prevent scavenging from dumpsters,
through a number of tamper proof mechanisms. However, scavenging
from public containers still remains a source of trash in the City.
Potential Expansion of Public Container/Bin Management
Big Belly Solar Trash Bin/Compactor
Enhancements to the existing public container and bin management
efforts could include installing additional Big Belly trash receptacles in areas of moderate and high trash
generation with high pedestrian traffic or currently overflowing trash receptacles. The results from recent
field visits suggest that while the City has a sufficient number of trash receptacles in most areas,
scavenging by homeless remains an issue that Big Belly trash receptacles could help prevent. Big Belly
receptacles could be installed in additional locations throughout TMA 1 (downtown) as well as in TMAs 3
and 4, where it appears that there is a lack of public receptacles.
In addition to installing additional public trash containers, it is recommended that the City consider
developing an improved mobile app to better track illegal dumping and littering issues and respond in a
more efficient manner. Although the City has a solid waste app to help residents and businesses
understand trash pickups and report issues, using the "See -Click -Fix" app may further assist the City in
identifying areas that require bin management. The app allows users to report issues to the City with a
reference location, and in Redding users could report overflowing bins and dumpsters, areas without
available bins and areas where illegal dumping or littering is prevalent.
Cost Estimates for Enhanced Actions
The preliminary, planning -level cost estimates associated with the planning and implementation of an
enhanced public container and bin management program throughout the City is presented in Table 8.
March 0.23 25
torrnwaterTrash Control Mea ores Evaluation
Table 8. Preliminary planning -level costs estimates for enhancing Public Container/Bin Management in the City of Redding.
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year
March 2023 26
Base/initial
Tasks
On-going/Annual
Tasks
Summary of Enhancement
City Staff
Implementing
Estimated Staffing
g
Annual FTEAnnual
Rate
Estimated
Estimated Staffing
(Annual)
FTE
Rate
Estimated
Enhancements'
Geographical Span of
Assumptions
Task
(Fully
Costs
(Fully
Costs
Implementation
Hours
Portion of FTEI
Burdened)
Hours
Portion of FTEa
Burdened)
City Solid Waste
Installation of 20 new Big Belly
Worker
(Calculations
60
0.03
$79,180
$2,375
receptacles
assumes 2
Install new/additional
workers)
Trash -pickup (assumes 10 pickups per
City Solid Waste
Big Belly Trash
TMAs 1, 3 and 4
Compactors
year at 1 hour each)
Worker
200
0.1
$79,180
$7,918
Leasing Costs (assumes $3000 per can
--
--
--
-
$60,000
per year)
Outreach to residents and businesses
City Outreach
and Monitoring
100
0.05
$321,060
$16,053
about See -Click -Fix
Coordinator
Cost of purchasing See -Click -Fix
$8,700
Implement utilization
of See -Click -Fix App
Entire City
City Solid Waste
Worker
Respond to See -Click -Fix Issues
(Calculations
200
0.1
$79,180
$7,918
assumes 2
workers)
O
NA
Provide oversight of above tasks
Deputy Director
40
0.02
$307,100
$6,142
ofCosts
of Solid Waste
Totals
160
0.08
$18,428
440
0.22
$90,678
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year
March 2023 26
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
2.7 Enhanced City-wide Public Education and Outreach Program
Education and outreach programs are designed to raise citizen awareness about the impacts of littering
or illegal dumping and teach citizens how to change their behavior accordingly. Programs usually include
a mixture of anti -littering advocacy, reinforced with the development of classroom curricula, storm drain
signage and volunteer cleanups. To effectively target audiences, program managers need to have a strong
understanding of the behaviors and attitudes of litterers before developing an outreach program.
Programs can change people's attitudes, but implementation needs to be consistent over time to
maintain performance. It is difficult to estimate the percentage reduction that the City may achieve
through implementing an enhanced City-wide public education and outreach program, however, EOA
staff have qualitatively estimated that an enhanced program implemented as described in this section
could offer a 5% maximum trash reduction in the City by 2030.
Existing Public Education and Outreach Program
The existing stormwater public education program
in the City is primarily facilitated by each school.
Some elementary and high school students attend
presentations on watershed health and stormwater
pollutants and take tours of the water treatment
plant. The outreach component of the program
hosts local cleanup events and develops PSA's
including "DrakenBill", two rubber ducks who
emphasize the importance of stormwater
management.
Potential Enhancement of Public Education and Outreach Program
Expansion of the community outreach and education program could benefit overall trash load reduction
by promoting litter prevention initiatives. Opportunities for growth in public education could involve
additional school programs for middle schoolers potentially taught by high schoolers. Enhancement of
the outreach program could include developing new initiatives such as a "Clean Street" campaign or
further use of the "DrakenBill" PSA series. Schools were noted as significant sources of trash in EOA's
recent source investigation. Ephemeral events or programs mean a lack of reinforcement for the
community in maintaining clean watershed objectives. By introducing storm water pollution prevention
throughout schooling and keeping these initiatives and programs consistent over time, students and
communities will engrain these concepts into the culture of the City.
Cost Estimates for Enhanced Actions
The preliminary, planning -level cost estimates associated with the planning and implementation of an
enhanced city-wide public education and outreach program throughout the City is presented in Table 9.
Maichi .20123 27
torrnwaterTrash Control Measures Evaluation
Table 9. Preliminary Planning -Level Costs Estimates for an Enhanced City -Wide Public Education and Outreach Program in the City of Redding.
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023 28
Base/initial Tasks
Cin-going/Annual
Tasks
Summary of Enhancement
Estimated Staffing
Annual
FTE Rate
Estimated
Estimated Staffing
Annual
FTE Rate
City Staff Implementing Task
Task
Geographical Span
Assumptions'
(Fully
Costs
(annual)
(Fully
Estimated Costs
Hours
Portion of FTEa
Hours
Portion of FTEa
of Implementation
Burdened)
Burdened)
City staff will develop and
coordinate further
City Outreach and Monitoring
300
0.15
$321,060
$48,159
200
0.1
$321,060
$32,106
education programs and
Coordinator
Expansion of
provide training to
outreach and
volunteers to present to
education program to
Middle schools in the City
classrooms and student
involve additional
groups, and will participate
City Storm Water Management
100
0.05
$321,060
$16,053
200
0.1
$321,060
$32,106
school programs for
in the implementation of
Program Coordinator
middle schoolers
the program
Flat rate cost estimate for
Materials cost
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$1000
educational materials
City Outreach and
160
0.08
$321,060
$25,685
100
0.05
$321,060
$16,053
City staff develops and
Monitoring Coordinator
City-wide- will conduct
outreach on social media
implements social media
Implement an
and may conduct direct
campaign
outreach messaging
outreach at businesses,
City Storm Water Management
40
0.02
$321,060
$6,421
100
0.05
$321,060
$16,053
campaign
industrial facilities, schools,
Program Coordinator
parks
Flat rate cost estimate for
Materials cost
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$1000
outreach materials
Overhead Costs
NA
Provide oversight of above
Environmental Compliance
20
0.01
$435,380
$4,354
20
0.01
$435,380
$4,354
projects
Manager
Totals
620
0.31
-
$100,672
620
0.31
--
$102,672
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023 28
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
2.8 Municipal Ordinance —Single -use Plastic Food Service Ware
The City of Berkeley and San Mateo Unincorporated
County recently adopted a comprehensive Single -
use Plastic Food Service Ware Ordinance that will
ultimately ban the use and distribution of plastic
single -use takeout food -ware for all food vendors.
Adopting a similar ordinance would reduce the
amount of single -use takeout food -ware in the City,
which is a main source of trash in the City of
Redding. Reducing the amount of single -use takeout
food -ware would contribute to trash reduction in
the City as a whole. Reductions associated with the
ordinance would need to be observed via OVTAs
conducted by City staff or contractors. Based on
previous studies evaluating the types of trash in
MS4s and the successes that municipalities have
had in the Bay Area in reducing the use of single -use
expanded polystyrene food ware, it is anticipated Example Public Education Materials on a New Single -Use
that the adoption, implementation and Foodware ordinance
enforcement of a comprehensive Single -use Plastic (Courtesy of the Citv/County of San Francisco)
Food Service Ware Ordinance could assist the City in reducing up to 15% of the litter observed on streets
and sidewalks.
Existing Single -Use Foodware Trash Control
The City does not currently have an ordinance in place relating to single -use plastic food ware or EPS. The
City has implemented the following actions to reduce the use/distribution of litter -prone items:
Single -Use Plastic Bag Ordinance
The Single -Use plastic bag ordinance banned single -use plastic bag use in the City and installed a
fee on paper and reusable plastic bags. The Single -Use plastic bag ordinance went into effect on
November 2018. This ordinance is implemented to reduce the environmental impact of single -
use bag litter in the City.
Enhanced Source Control Actions
The enhanced control measure identified is for the City to develop, adoption, implement and enforce a
comprehensive Single -use Plastic Food Service Ware Ordinance.
Cost Estimates for Enhanced Actions
The preliminary, planning -level cost estimates associated with the planning and implementation of a
Single -use Plastic Food Service Ware Ordinance in the City of Redding is presented in Table 10.
Mai chi .20125 2
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Table 10. Preliminary Planning -Level Costs estimates for adopting and implementing a Single -use Plastic Food Service Ware Ordinance.
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023 30
Base/Initial
Tasks
On-going/Annual
Tasks
Summary of Enhancement
Estimated' Staffing
Annual FTE
Estimated Staffing
Annual FTE
Geographical
City Staff Implementing Task
Rate
Estimated
annual
(annual)
Rate
Estimated
Tasks
Span of
Assumptions
(Fully ,
Costs
(Fully
Costs
Hours
Portion
Hours
Portion
Implementation
Burdened) "
Burdened)
of FTE1
of'FTE1
Draft a single -use plastic food
ware ban ordinance and
provide staff support on the
Assumes the City will use similar
adoption and implementation
ordinances (i.e. Berkeley, Bay
of this ordinance. Ordinance
Area Counties) as a draft
City Environmental
500
0.25
$435,380
$108,845
could include items such as
template, minimizing planning
Compliance Manager
cups, lids, utensils, straws,
hours
clamshells, and other
disposable items.
Create outreach to applicable
Create and implement an
City Outreach and
businesses on the ordinance,
outreach program to advertise
Monitoring Coordinator
500
0.25
$321,060
$80,265
alternative products, etc.
Entire City
new ordinance
Coordinate communications
with business owners.
Outreach Materials Cost
NA
$1,000
• Assumes 1200 of 1568
commercial business will be
Inspect businesses to enforce
inspected for compliance
the single -use plastic food ware
with ordinance
City Inspector
--
--
--
--
1200
0.6
$291,040
$176,624
ban
. Assumes 1 hour per
inspection (Includes driving
time and tracking/data
entry)
Overhead Costs
Provide oversight of above
City Environmental Compliance
20
0.01
$271,900
$2,719
20
0.01
$435,380
$4,354
tasks
Manager
Totals
1020
0.51
--
$192,829
1220
0.51
-
$178,978
a One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position is assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given year.
March 2023 30
Stoo,'rnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
2.9 Summary of Potential New or Enhanced Source Controls
The estimated costs and potential trash reduction benefits of implementing new or enhanced trash
control measures described in the previous sections are summarized in Table 11. Costs are presented as
base/initial costs, on-going/annual costs, and 50 -year lifecycle costs. Base/initial costs are associated with
design and capital (i.e., construction/fabrication, installation, etc.) for large and small full capture systems,
and the development, adoption, and upfront costs for institutional and source controls. On-going/annual
costs are associated with the on-going costs to the City to maintain, implement, replace, and/or enforce
the trash control measure. 50 -year lifecycle costs are based on the sum of base/initial costs and the
average annual implementation costs over a 50 -year timeframe. Lifecycle costs have not been adjusted
for inflation and assume that average on-going/annual costs would remain consistent of the 50 -year
timeframe. The cost estimates presented in Table 11 are used in Section 3.0 to compare multiple trash
control measure implementation scenarios that are designed to achieve the California statewide goal of
full capture or equivalency for trash generated in PLU areas.
The estimated maximum trash reduction benefit for each control measure is also included in Table 11.
The maximum benefit is based on the City's baseline trash generation map and assumes for structural
controls that the City would receive additional (offsetting) reduction by addressing trash from non-PLU
areas, which are largely associated with streets/roadways. Where trash reduction benefit information
was not available for a specific control measure, best professional judgement was used to estimate the
maximum potential benefit of implementing a control measure.
Table 11. Summary of the preliminary planning level cost estimate and trash reduction benefits of
implementing potential new or enhanced trash control measures .a
'These values are calculated using the 2020 value of the US dollar.
I These values combine properties that drain to the public ROW and properties that drain to inlets on private properties into one cost estimate.
In some scenario sections, these categories will be split with a proportion of the total cost estimates that is consistent with the proportion of
acreage that each category holds in the City.
Reduction benefits include addressing trash from PLU areas within catchments FTC01B, FTC01C-3, FTC03A-1, and FTC04E.
d Reduction benefits include addressing trash from all PLU areas.
I Estimates vary based on frequency and where on -land cleanups and public container/bin management occur, thus no maximum reductions
were calculated.
'This is a qualitative estimate based the maximum demonstrated reduction by a public education and outreach program.
B Based on information regarding the estimated proportion of trash in stormwater that is single -use plastic food ware (i.e., SF Bay Trash
Generation Rates Study— BASMAA 2014), and the estimated effectiveness of the potential ordinance.
C.if"ch 2023 31
Estimated
On-going/Annual
Maximum
Control Measure
Base/Initial Tasks
Tasks
''
50-Year Lifecycle Costs
Potential
Trash
Reduction
Large Trash Full Capture
$4,564,287
$59,278
$7,528,193
—39%1
Systems
Small Trash Full Capture
$1,369,002
$223,543
$12,546,152
— 57%d
Systems
Trash Inspections of
b
$68,804
$88,840
$4,510,814
—55%
Private Properties
Publicly -Owned Curb
$193,829
$11,181
$752,879
—25%
Inlet Screens
Expanded On -Land
$12,842
$84,636
$4,244,632
-- e
Cleanups
Enhanced Public
Container/Bin
$18,428
$90,678
$4,552,328
--
Management
Enhanced City -Wide
Public Education and
$100,672
$102,672
$5,234,262
5%f
Outreach Program.
Municipal Ordinance —
Single -use Plastic Food
$192,829
$178,978
$9,141,719
15%g
Service Ware
'These values are calculated using the 2020 value of the US dollar.
I These values combine properties that drain to the public ROW and properties that drain to inlets on private properties into one cost estimate.
In some scenario sections, these categories will be split with a proportion of the total cost estimates that is consistent with the proportion of
acreage that each category holds in the City.
Reduction benefits include addressing trash from PLU areas within catchments FTC01B, FTC01C-3, FTC03A-1, and FTC04E.
d Reduction benefits include addressing trash from all PLU areas.
I Estimates vary based on frequency and where on -land cleanups and public container/bin management occur, thus no maximum reductions
were calculated.
'This is a qualitative estimate based the maximum demonstrated reduction by a public education and outreach program.
B Based on information regarding the estimated proportion of trash in stormwater that is single -use plastic food ware (i.e., SF Bay Trash
Generation Rates Study— BASMAA 2014), and the estimated effectiveness of the potential ordinance.
C.if"ch 2023 31
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures EvaWtion
3. Trash Control MeasureIm .:
There are a number of different combinations of the trash control measure implementation scenarios
that the City could choose to implement to enhance the reduction of trash in stormwater and address the
goal established in the Trash Amendments. Four implementation scenarios are described in this section
(Table 12). Each scenario was selected based on existing information on the benefits of the associated
control measures included in each scenario. It is estimated that each scenario could achieve the full
capture or equivalency trash reduction goal in the City if fully implemented. The preliminary planning
level cost estimates for each scenario are also included in this section.
Table 12. Implementation scenarios for new/enhanced trash control measures designed to achieve the
goal of the Trash Amendments (i.e., full capture or equivalent in all FLU areas) in the City of Redding.
These four scenarios are organized in the following way:
• Scenario 1 includes the installation of four (4) large trash full capture systems described in section
2.1 and outlined in the City's Trash Full Capture System Feasibility Evaluation (Appendix B), the
installation of 368 small trash full capture systems in areas outside of the catchments for the four
large systems, and the implementation of a trash inspection program to address trash on
properties that don't drain to the public ROW.
• Scenario 2 is a modification of Scenario 1, where the actions listed in Scenario 1 are implemented,
but instead of installing large trash capture systems in the four catchments, an additional (287)
small trash full capture systems are installed and maintained.
• Scenario 3 includes the installation of four (4) large trash full capture systems as outlined in
section 2.1, the implementation of a trash inspection program to address trash on properties that
don't drain to the public ROW, the installation and maintenance of 312 curb -inlet screens to
address trash in the public ROW, and the expansion of on -land cleanup programs.
• Scenario 4 includes a set of six (6) institutional and source control measures, and excludes the
installation of large or small trash full capture systems.
March 2023 32
06
CL
o
o
"0
-0
aw
fu
0
a 3,
r_
_
M U
Implementation
-
—
i < '
�'
a, p
.3
s b
Scenario
a
i3 C ++
c
tC
i
a
'23
o
'�5 Cha
CL
B
ili
U1
ci.
m ami
'(j L
#-+
-ei
u
0
h
y
L
L L1
a1
.Q
fn
a7 CL
C
a7 O
(a C�tl '.
£1
L
Nt'L)
F_- N
4:
C X10tko
a1
C C
C t'�6
3
CLM
L
760
,Q
'.
N
W
+�.�
U
W
W W
'.. a t N
o ti%'5
4n
Ln
i— z:-_ a-
U
U
1
•
•
•
2
•
•
3
•
.
•
•
•
•
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
These four scenarios are organized in the following way:
• Scenario 1 includes the installation of four (4) large trash full capture systems described in section
2.1 and outlined in the City's Trash Full Capture System Feasibility Evaluation (Appendix B), the
installation of 368 small trash full capture systems in areas outside of the catchments for the four
large systems, and the implementation of a trash inspection program to address trash on
properties that don't drain to the public ROW.
• Scenario 2 is a modification of Scenario 1, where the actions listed in Scenario 1 are implemented,
but instead of installing large trash capture systems in the four catchments, an additional (287)
small trash full capture systems are installed and maintained.
• Scenario 3 includes the installation of four (4) large trash full capture systems as outlined in
section 2.1, the implementation of a trash inspection program to address trash on properties that
don't drain to the public ROW, the installation and maintenance of 312 curb -inlet screens to
address trash in the public ROW, and the expansion of on -land cleanup programs.
• Scenario 4 includes a set of six (6) institutional and source control measures, and excludes the
installation of large or small trash full capture systems.
March 2023 32
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
3.1 Scenario 1: Trash Full Capture - Large and Small Systems
In scenario 1 the City would install and maintain large full capture systems at four (4) catchment locations
and 368 small trash full capture systems in inlets in the public ROW that are outside of the catchments for
the large full capture systems. These actions would address all trash -generating areas in the City that
drain to the public ROW via a combination of large and small trash full capture systems. Additionally, the
City would develop and implement a trash inspection program to address trash on private properties that
enters the City's MS4 through storm drain inlets located on private properties. City staff would conduct
OVTAs to verify low trash generation via the inspections. No additional institutional or source controls
would be implemented under this scenario. The preliminary planning level costs associated with this
scenario are included in Table 13. There is a relatively high level of confidence in this scenario achieving
the overall trash reduction goal established by the Trash Amendments.
Table 13. Preliminary planning level cost estimates for implementing Scenario 1.
Control Measure
Base/initial Tasks
On-going/Annual Tasks
50 Year Lifecycle Costs
Large Full Capture Systems at
$4,564,287
$59,278
$7,528,193
four (4) locations
368 Small Trash Full Capture
$68,804
$88,840
$4,510,814
Systems (outside of
$1,082,002
$145,698
$8,366,902
Catchments for Large Trash
$1,437,806:
$312,383
$17,056,956
Full Capture Systems)
Trash Inspection Program on
$68,804
$88,840
$4,510,814
Private Properties
Totals
$5,715,093
$293,816
$20,405,893
3.2 Scenario 2: Trash Full Capture - Small Systems
In scenario 2, the City would install and maintain small trash full capture systems in all 655 inlets in the
public ROW that are associated with moderate or high trash generating areas. No large full capture
systems would be installed in this scenario. Additionally, the City would develop and implement a trash
inspection program to address trash on private properties that drain to storm drain inlets located on
private properties. City staff would conduct OVTAs to verify low trash generation via the inspections. No
additional institutional or source controls would be implemented under this scenario. The preliminary
planning level costs associated with this scenario are included in Table 14. There is a relatively high level
of confidence in this scenario achieving the overall trash reduction goal.
Table 14. Preliminary planning level cost estimates for implementing Scenario 2.
Control Measure
Base/Initial Tasks
On-going/Annual Tasks
50 Year Lifecycle Costs
655 Publicly -Owned Small Full Capture
$1,369,002
$223,543
$12,546,152
Systems (all areas)
Trash Inspection Program on Private
$68,804
$88,840
$4,510,814
Properties
Totals
$1,437,806:
$312,383
$17,056,956
March 2023 33
torrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
3.3 Scenario 3: Large Full Capture Systems & Multiple Institutional and
Source Controls
In this scenario, all remaining significant trash generating areas would be addressed by:
• Fifteen large trash full capture systems at four catchment locations;
• Trash Inspection Program to identify trash levels on private properties and requires property
owners to implement additional actions to reduce trash to a low trash generating level or install a
full capture system;
• Enhanced Public Container/Bin Management;
• 312 Curb Inlet Screens installed on inlets in the public ROW;
• Expanded On -land Cleanups; and
• In addition to OVTAs conducted as part of the Trash Inspection Program on private properties,
the City conducts OVTAs at selected locations on streets and sidewalks to verify reductions
associated with public container management and expanded on -land cleanups.4
The preliminary planning level costs associated with this scenario are included in Table 15. There is a
relatively moderate level of confidence in this scenario achieving the overall trash reduction goal.
Table 15. Preliminary planning level cost estimates for implementing Scenario 3.
Control Measure/ Action
Base/Initial Tasks
On-going/Annual Tasks
50 Year Lifecycle Costs
15 Large Full Capture Systems at 4
$4,564,287
$59,278
$7,528,193
catchment locations
Trash Inspections on Private Properties
$68,804
$88,840
$4,510,814
Enhanced Public Container/Bin
$18,428
$90,678
$4,552,328
Management
Curb -inlet Screens on inlets in the Public
$193,829
$11,181
$752,879
ROW
Expanded On -Land Cleanups
$12,842
$84,636
$4,244,632
OVTAs on Streets/Sidewalks to Assess
$10,000
$4,500
$235,000
Progress
Totals
$4,868,191
$339,113
$21,823,847
4 Assumes OVTAs are conducted by two City staff or consultants at ($100,000 FTE Salary). OVTAs are conducted 3x/year at
approximately 30 sites that are each 500 feet in length on average. Each assessment takes roughly 0.5 hrs, including travel time.
Also assumes that data are managed in a relatively efficient manner with limited costs.
March 2023 34
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
3.4 Scenario 4: Only Institutional and Source Controls
In this scenario, all remaining moderate or high trash generating areas would be addressed solely by
additional institutional and source controls. No new full capture systems are installed as part of this
implementation scenario. The following institutional and source controls would be implemented:
• Trash Inspection Program to identify trash levels on private properties and requires property
owners to implement additional actions to reduce trash to a low trash generating level or install a
full capture system(s);
• Enhanced Public Container/Bin Management;
• 312 Curb -Inlet Screens installed on inlets in the public ROW;
• Expanded On -land Cleanups;
• Enhanced City-wide Public Education and Outreach Program for Litter;
• A New Municipal Ordinance — Single -use Plastic Food Service Ware; and
• In addition to OVTAs conducted as part of the Trash Inspection Program on private properties,
the City conducts OVTAs at selected locations on streets and sidewalks to verify reductions
associated with public container management and expanded on -land cleanups.=
The preliminary planning level costs associated with this scenario are included in Table 16. There is a
relatively moderate level of confidence in this scenario achieving the overall trash reduction goal.
Table 16. Preliminary planning level cost estimates for implementing Scenario 4.
Control Measure/ Action
Base/Initial Tasks
On-going/Annual Tasks
50 Year Lifecycle Costs
Trash Inspections on Private Properties
$68,804
$88,840
$4,510,814
Enhanced Public Container/Bin
$18,428
$90,678
$4,552,328
Management
Curb -inlet Screens on inlets in the Public
$193,829
$11,181
$752,879
ROW
Expanded On -Land Cleanups
$12,842
$84,636
$4,244,632
Enhanced City -Wide Public Education and
$100,672
$102,672
$5,234,262
Outreach
Municipal Ordinance—Single Use Plastic
$134,549
$94,447
$4,856,899
Food Service Ware
OVTAs on Streets/Sidewalks to Assess
$12,500
$6,000
$312,500
Progress
Totals
$541,625
$478,454
$24,464,314
5 Assumes OVTAs are conducted by two City staff or consultants at ($100,000 FTE Salary). OVTAs are conducted 3x/year at
approximately 40 sites that are each 500 feet in length on average. Each assessment takes roughly 0.5 hrs, including travel time.
Also assumes that data are managed in a relatively efficient manner with limited costs.
March 202335
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
3.5 Comparison of Trash Control Measure Implementation Scenarios
The estimated costs of implementing the six (6) different trash control measure implementation
scenarios described in this section are compared in Table 20. The estimated levels of confidence that
each scenario will achieve the overall MRP trash reduction goal of 100% (i.e., no adverse effects) are also
summarized in Table 17.
Table 17. Summary table of preliminary planning level cost estimates for trash control measure
implementation scenarios designed to achieve the trash reduction goal mandated by the statewide Trash
Amendments.
Action4. 10 -year I1, ash Control Measure
Although the City currently has a robust trash control program, the City will likely need to enhance many
of its existing trash control measures, as well as begin implementing new trash control measures to
address trash levels in moderate and high trash generating FLU areas to address the mandated Trash
Amendments goal of full capture or equivalent in FLU areas by 2030. Four (4) potential trash control
measure implementation scenarios were developed, and the associated costs of these scenarios were
estimated to help the City identify the resources needed to achieve this goal by 2030. These scenarios
each have different base/initial costs and ongoing/annual costs, and different levels of confidence in that
the implementation of these actions will achieve the goal of the Trash Amendments.
Due to the high level of confidence in achieving the trash goal, Scenario 1 (Trash Full Capture — Large and
Small Systems) and Scenario 2 (Trash Full Capture —Small Systems) are the most high priority
implementation scenarios for the City. Based on discussions with City staff, large systems are preferrable
to small systems due to the lower costs for operating and maintaining these systems, and therefore
Scenario 1 (Trash Full Capture — Large and Small Systems) was selected as the preliminary recommended
approach to addressing trash in the City. This approach relies on the implementation of the following
trash control measures over the next ten (10) years:
March 2023 36
Confidence in
Achieving Trash
Implementation Scenario
Base/Initial
On-going/Annual
50 Year
Amendments Goal
Tasks
Tasks
Lifecycle Costs
(Full Capture or
Equivalent in PLU
Areas)
1 - Trash Full Capture - Large and
$5,715,093
$293,816
$20,405,893
High
Small Systems
2 - Trash Full Capture - Small
$1,437,806
$312,383
$17,056,956
High
Systems
3 - Large Full Capture Systems &
Multiple Institutional and Source
$4,868,191
$339,113
$21,823,847
Moderate
Controls
4 - Only Institutional and Source
$541,625
$478,454
$24,464,314
Moderate
Controls
Action4. 10 -year I1, ash Control Measure
Although the City currently has a robust trash control program, the City will likely need to enhance many
of its existing trash control measures, as well as begin implementing new trash control measures to
address trash levels in moderate and high trash generating FLU areas to address the mandated Trash
Amendments goal of full capture or equivalent in FLU areas by 2030. Four (4) potential trash control
measure implementation scenarios were developed, and the associated costs of these scenarios were
estimated to help the City identify the resources needed to achieve this goal by 2030. These scenarios
each have different base/initial costs and ongoing/annual costs, and different levels of confidence in that
the implementation of these actions will achieve the goal of the Trash Amendments.
Due to the high level of confidence in achieving the trash goal, Scenario 1 (Trash Full Capture — Large and
Small Systems) and Scenario 2 (Trash Full Capture —Small Systems) are the most high priority
implementation scenarios for the City. Based on discussions with City staff, large systems are preferrable
to small systems due to the lower costs for operating and maintaining these systems, and therefore
Scenario 1 (Trash Full Capture — Large and Small Systems) was selected as the preliminary recommended
approach to addressing trash in the City. This approach relies on the implementation of the following
trash control measures over the next ten (10) years:
March 2023 36
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures EvaIuation
• Installation and maintenance of large trash full capture systems at four (4) locations;
• Installation and maintenance of 368 small trash full capture systems in inlets in the public ROW
located outside of the catchments addressed by the large full capture systems; and
• Implementation of a trash inspection program to address trash on private properties that enters
the City's MS4 through storm drain inlets located on private properties.
The 10 -year implementation phasing of this approach is outlined in Table 18. Based on this
implementation phasing, costs estimates and staffing resource needs for each fiscal year leading to fully
addressing the Trash Amendments goal by December 2030 is presented in Table 19. The Implementation
Strategy (Table 18) and cost/resource estimate (Table 19) provide the City with an preliminary long-term
action plan to address the goal of the Trash Amendments. As the action plan is implemented, the strategy
and associated cost estimates are likely to change based on new information gathered during the City's
implementation process. Therefore, cost estimates presented in Table 19 should be periodically updated
to assist the City with future planning/budgeting.
March 2023 37
Storrnwater Trash Control Mea ores Evaluation
Table 18. Summary of tasks in 10 -year Action Plan for the City of Redding.
s or ch 2023 38
Control Measure Category
Fiscal Year
Urge FullCapture System
Small Full Capture System
Trash Inspections on Private Properties
FY 22/23
• With consultant support, City continues evaluating the
• With consultant support, City identifies and selects
• City reviews existing legal authority to require all private
feasibility of installing/constructing large full capture
catchment(s)/TMA(s) where small full capture systems should
properties to achieve low trash generation (i.e., OVTA `A'
system at the four (4) priority locations.
be the highest priority and the focus of FY 23/24 and 24/25
score) and/or install full capture system(s) on their properties.
• Consultant and City conduct additional field visits to
installations.
further evaluate feasibility at preliminary locations.
• City develops RFP for consultant engineering designs
services to further evaluate locations, design large capture
systems, and develop refined cost estimates.
• City selects engineering design consultant and enters into
agreement.
FY 23/24
• Engineering design consultant develops engineering
• City develops and releases bid package for vendor to install 50
• With consultant report, City develops and documents the
design for large full capture system #1.
full capture systems in highest priority catchment(s)/TMA(s).
program for conducting OVTAs on private properties.
Install systems in highest priority sites.
• With consultant report, City trains restaurant inspectors on
• Vendor installs 50 devices at highest priority sites.
conducting OVTAs during inspections (-240 inspections per
• City develops data management system to house 0&M
year).
information.
• With consultant report, City develops data management
system for managing OVTA data.
• City develops educational materials for conducting outreach to
restaurants and private property owners.
FY 24/25
• City releases bid package for construction contract for
• City purchases a Vacuum Assisted Truck
• City conducts inspections at restaurants and other identified
construction of large full capture system #1.
• City develops SOP for conducting 0&M on small devices.
private properties.
• Contractor constructs large full capture system #1.
• City conducts maintenance of 50 small systems.
FY 25/26
• City develops a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
• With consultant support, City identifies and selects
• City conducts inspections at restaurants and other identified
large full capture system #1.
catchment(s)/TMA(s) where next round of small full capture
private properties.
• City conducts maintenance of large full capture system
systems should be installed.
#1.
• Vendor installs an additional 100 devices at high priority sites.
• Design engineer consultant develops engineering design
• City conducts maintenance of 50 small systems.
for large full capture systems #2 and #3.
s or ch 2023 38
3torrnwaterTrash Control Measures Evaluation
March 2023 3
Control Measure Category
Fiscal Year
Large FullCapture System
Small Full Capture System
Trash Inspections on Private Properties
• City releases bid package for construction contract for
construction of large full capture systems #2 and #3.
FY 26/27
• Contractor constructs large full capture systems #2 and
• City conducts maintenance of 150 small systems.
• City conducts inspections at restaurants and other identified
#3.
private properties.
• City conducts maintenance of large full capture system
#1.
FY 27/28
• Contractor constructs large full capture systems #2 and
• City develops and releases bid package for vendor to install next
• City conducts inspections at restaurants and other identified
#3.
round of full capture systems in highest priority
private properties.
• City develops a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
catchment(s)/TMA(s).
large full capture systems #2 and #3.
• Vendor installs an additional 100 devices at high priority sites.
• City conducts maintenance of large full capture systems
• City conducts maintenance of 150 small systems.
#1, #2, and #3.
FY 28/29
• Design engineer consultant develops engineering design
• City conducts maintenance of 250 small systems.
• City conducts inspections at restaurants and other identified
for large full capture system #4.
private properties.
• City releases bid package for construction contract for
construction of large full capture system #4.
• City conducts maintenance of large full capture systems
#1, #2, and #3.
FY 29/30
• Contractor constructs large full capture system #4.
• City develops and releases bid package for vendor to install next
• City conducts inspections at restaurants and other identified
• City develops a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
round of full capture systems in highest priority
private properties.
large full capture systems #4.
catchments)/TMA(s).
• City conducts maintenance of large full capture systems
• Vendor installs an additional 118 devices at high priority sites.
#1, #2, and #3.
City conducts maintenance of 250 small systems.
FY 30/31
• City conducts maintenance of large full capture systems
• City conducts maintenance of 368 small systems.
• City conducts inspections at restaurants and other identified
#1, #2, #3, and #4.
private properties.
March 2023 3
S1orrnmvaterTrash Control MeaauresEva|uation
Table 19. Estimated City of Redding consultant/capita I costs and staffing resource needs for implementing the 10 -year Action Plan.
March 2023 40
Estimated City of Redding Staffing Resource Needs
(FTE)
0
1-
46
ro
Fiscal Year
Consultant/
E
C:
Capital Costs
d
M
a)
Total Capital
$5,320,000
1
March 2023 40
StonmmaterTrash Control Measures Bva|uatim
DASK4AA (2017). Tracking California's Trash Project: Evaluation of the On -land Visual Assessment Protocol
as a Method to Establish Baseline Levels of Trash and Detect Improvements in Stormwater Quality.
Bay Area 5tormvvater Management Agencies Association. State Water Resources Control Board
Grant Agreement No. 12-42O-55O.Prepared byEOA,Inc.
htip://basmaa.oro/4nnouncements/tracking'cas'trash'on'|and'visua|-assessmenis.
EOA, Inc, In prep. Trash Reduction Effectiveness of Curb Inlet Screens. In preparation by EOA.
March 2023 41
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures EvaWtion
C,ity of Redding Baseline Trash Generation Maps and Tras
Management Areas (TMAs) i
March 2023 A-1
Ston -mater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Overview Map - Baseline trash generating areas of PLUs and TMA boundaries in the of the City of Redding (Revised
August 2021).
March 2023 A-2
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Downtown Area - Baseline trash generating areas of PLUS and TMA boundaries in the City of Redding (Revised
August 2021).
Mai -ch 2023 ,A -e3
Ston -n mater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Northern Area - Baseline trash generating areas of PLUS and TMA boundaries in the of the City of Redding (Revised
August 2021).
orc h red , a -
Storrnwater Trash Control Measures Evaluation
Enterprise Area - Baseline trash generating areas of PLUS and TMA boundaries in the of the City of Redding (Revised
August 2021).
March 2023 A-5
Ston -mater Trash Control Measures 6vaWt€can
Area along Highway 273 - Baseline trash generating areas of PLUS and TMA boundaries in the of the City of Redding
(Revised August 2021).
March 2023 A-6
Ston-nwater Trash Control Measures EvaWtion
TRASH FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM
FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
Technical Memorandum
OMM
January 2022
Purpose roj c
This technical memorandum provides a cost -benefit analysis of installing and maintaining large and small
trash full capture systems' within the City of Redding's (City) municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) to address trash from Priority Land Use (PLU), areas and stormwater trash management goals
established in the Statewide Trash Amendment adopted by the State Water Resource Control Board
(State Water Board). The results of the analysis are intended to provide the City with estimates of the
trash reduction benefits and preliminary planning level cost estimates for the installation and
maintenance of these systems.
Background
Regulatory Background
On April 7, 2015, the State Water Board adopted Trash Amendments that amend two statewide water
quality control plans to include trash control requirements for owners or operators of MS4s (State Water
Board 2015).3 The Trash Amendments will be implemented through NPDES permits, including the Phase II
Small MS4 permit (WQ Order 2013-0001-DWQNPDES NO. CAS000004) for which the City is a permittee.
Under the Trash Amendments, and eventually through the reissued Phase II permit, the City is required to
reduce the amount of trash discharged to local water bodies from its MS4 to acceptable levels, beginning
no later than 2020 and continuing through the next decade (i.e., 2030).
In November 2018, the City submitted its Stormwater Trash Control Implementation Plan
(Implementation Plan) to the State Water Resource Control Board (State Water Board), which notified the
agency of the City's intent to implement a combination of full capture systems, multi -benefit projects,
institutional controls, and/or other treatment controls to address the trash reduction goals outlined in
the Trash Amendments. In the Implementation Plan, the City identified existing and planned stormwater
control measures it will implement to address the trash reduction goals. Trash full capture systems are
one type of trash control measure City is currently considering implementing.
Priority Land Use (PLU) Areas and Baseline Trash Levels
As defined by the Trash Amendments, PLU areas include all land areas draining to an MS4 that are
currently developed as high density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public
transportation stations. In 2018, the City included preliminary information on PLU areas in its
Implementation Plan submitted to the State Water Board based on the limited analyses that had been
conducted to date. In 2021, the City conducted an additional evaluation of areas initially as PLUS areas.
The evaluation focused on further determining whether areas originally identified as PLU areas were in
fact hydrologically connected to the City's MS4. The evaluation consisted of conducting a more robust
analysis using available information on the configuration of the City's MS4, drainage features on private
parcels, land elevation data, and institutional knowledge of City public works staff. Based on the
' The State Water Board defines a trash full capture system as a single system (or a series of systems) that traps all particles that are 5 mm or
greater and has a design treatment capacity that is either: a) of not less than the peak flow rate, Q, resulting from a one-year, one-hour, storm in
the subdrainage area, or b) appropriately sized to, and designed to carry at least the same flows as, the corresponding storm drain (State Water
Board 2015).
Z Priority Land Use areas are defined as follows: (1) High -Density Residential: all land uses with at least ten (10) developed dwelling units/acre; (2)
Industrial: land uses where the primary activities on the developed parcels involve product manufacture, storage, or distribution (e.g.,
manufacturing businesses, warehouses, equipment storage lots, junkyards, wholesale businesses, distribution centers, or building material sales
yards); (3) Commercial: land uses where the primary activities on the developed parcels involve the sale or transfer of goods or services to
consumers (e.g., business or professional buildings, shops, restaurants, theaters, vehicle repair shops, etc.); (4) Mixed Urban: land uses where
high-density residential, industrial, and/or commercial land uses predominate collectively (i.e., are intermixed); and (5) Public Transportation
Stations: facilities or sites where public transit agencies' vehicles load or unload passengers or goods (e.g., bus stations and stops).
3 These Amendments are found in Appendix E of the "Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of
California" (ISWEBE Plan) and Appendix D of the "Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California" (Ocean Plan).
2
outcomes of the 2021 evaluation, the City's PLU map was revised and, consistent with the Trash
Amendments, all areas confirmed to be hydrologically connected to the City's MS4 were identified as PLU
areas. There are 2,725 acres of land area identified as PLU areas. The remaining land area in the City
(36,221 acres) has been identified as non-PLU area and therefore is not subject to the Trash Amendments
and no trash reductions are required from these non-PLU areas.
As allowed by the Trash Amendments, the City may have the opportunity to address trash from a non-
PLU areas as a substitute for addressing trash in a PLU area as long as the non-PLU area generates an
equal or greater level of trash than the PLU area be substituted for (see Implementation Plan for
additional information). For the purposes of the analysis presented in this technical memo, however,
trash reductions associated with non-PLU areas were not considered given that the baseline trash
generation levels for non-PLU areas have yet to be established. The City may choose to account for trash
reductions associated with non -PLUS as trash full capture systems are installed.
The stormwater trash management goal established by the Trash Amendments is address trash from PLU
areas by either: Track 1) installing and maintaining trash full capture systems in the MS4 that receives
drainage from PLU areas; or Track 2) implementing a combination of trash controls that achieve an
equivalent level of trash management in PLU areas. As described its Implementation Plan, the City has
chosen the Track 2 approach. As such, the City established a baseline trash level for each PLU area based
on the results of multiple On -land Visual Trash Assessments (OVTAs) conducted by City staff and
consultants. As illustrated on the City's trash generation map, the levels of trash generation observed via
OVTAs is depicted as four categories — low, moderate, high, and very high. The levels of baseline trash
generation for PLU areas are provided in Table 1.4 To provide a higher level of geographical resolution for
trash control measure planning and tracking progress, the City's PLU areas were divided into 15 Trash
Management Areas (TMAs) numbered 1 through 15. Baseline trash generation illustrated in Table 1 are
presented by TMA. These TMAs are the geographical areas used to evaluate the costs and benefits of
installing and maintaining full capture systems.
As described in the City's Implementation Plan, the estimated baseline volume of trash generated
annually per acre of PLU area is being used as the basis for calculating progress towards the goal of the
Trash Amendments. The estimated baseline volume of trash generated from PLU areas in the City is
calculated using: 1) the trash generation categories illustrated on the City's baseline trash generation
maps depicting trash generating areas (see Appendix A); and 2) the annual average trash generation rates
that were developed in San Francisco Bay Area (BASMAA 2014) and are being used by the City. Based on
the results of the Tracking California's Trash project (BASMAA 2017) that was funded by the State Water
Board, the trash generation rates established by BASMAA (2014) correspond well to OVTA scoring
categories (A/B/C/D) and the associated trash generation categories (Low/Moderate/High/Very High).
Average annual trash generation rates in gallons per acre established by BASMAA (2017) are as follows:
Low = 0 (i.e., achieved the goal of the Trash Amendments); Moderate = 7.5; High = 30; and Very High =
100. These average trash generation rates were assigned to all PLU areas depicted on City baseline trash
generation maps to establish an estimated baseline volume of trash generated annually in City PLU areas.
Using the average rates above and the baseline trash generation levels shown in Table 1, it is estimated
that approximately 7,253 gallons of trash are generated from moderate trash generating areas and
22,320 gallons from high trash generating areas in the City, totaling 29,573 gallons of trash generated
annually. There are no very high trash generating areas in the City and as described in the previous
' Following the reevaluation of PLU areas within the City in 2021, a plan was developed to reassess PLU areas for baseline trash generation. The
impetus for the reassessment was based on staff observations that OVTA protocols for some areas in the City may not have been explicitly
followed during the initial assessments conducted in 2017/2018, which may have resulted in inaccurate trash generation levels illustrated on the
City's baseline trash generation map submitted to the State Water Board with its Track 2 Implementation Plan. The baseline trash generation
levels depicted in Table 1 and used in this memorandum are based on the results of the baseline reassessment conducted in 2021.
paragraph, PLU areas that have achieved low trash generation are assumed to have achieved the Trash
Amendments goal and therefore generate no trash (for the purpose of measuring trash reduction
progress).
Using the average trash generation rates and categories described above, the estimated volume of trash
intercepted by full capture systems or prevented/ intercepted by other trash control measures will be
used to demonstrate progress towards Trash Amendment. For full capture systems, this is done by
quantifying the geographical extent of PLU areas and associated levels of trash generation that have been
addressed (i.e., treated) by these devices. Percent trash reductions for full capture systems are calculated
by dividing the estimated volume of trash addressed by the devices, by the baseline trash volume
developed based on the trash generation maps (i.e., 29,573 gallons). The following equation is used to
calculate the percent trash reduction via full capture systems:
Estimated Volume of Trash (gallons) Intercepted via
Trash Full Capture Systems
Estimated Volume of Trash (gallons) Generated in all PLU areas
Potential ICapture
X 100
A trash full capture system is defined as a single device (or a series of systems) that traps all particles that
are 5 mm or greater and has a design treatment capacity that is either: a) of not less than the peak flow
rate, Q, resulting from a one-year, one-hour, storm in the subdrainage area, or b) appropriately sized to,
and designed to carry at least the same flows as, the corresponding storm drain. In 2017, the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Water Board) developed an initial list of certified full trash capture
systems that may be installed to comply with the Trash Amendments. This list has been subsequently
updated and will continue to be updated based on the certification process outlined by the State Water
Board. Descriptions of the general types of certified systems are provided in Appendix B. Certified
systems include larger "end -of -pipe" and "in-line" hydrodynamic, netting and screening systems, and
smaller screening systems installed in storm drain inlets or catch basins. The number and types of
potential large and small systems identified for each TMA are described in the following sections.
4
Table 1. City of Redding Priority Land Use (PLU) and Non-PLU areas (acres) in each baseline trash generation category.
Trash
Management
Area
(TMA)
Baseline
Trash Generating PLU Areas (acres)
Estimated Baseline
from PLU
Trash Generation
Areas
Non- LU Areas
(acres)
Total Area
and Non -
PLU)
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Annual Generation
(gallons)
Proportion Of(PLU
Annual Generation
on
NO
1
108
201
131
440
5,438
19.4%
1,223
1,663
2
46
15
19
80
693
2.0%
434
514
3
61
127
265
453
8,903
229%
306
759
4
67
149
68
284
3,158
12.7%
145
429
5
69
37
50
156
1,778
5.1%
405
561
6
56
70
63
189
2,415
7.8%
664
853
7
142
226
64
432
3,615
170%
1,361
1,793
8
67
98
54
219
2,355
8.9%
1,344
1,563
9
20
9
29
68
0,5%
435
464
10
167
4
24
195
750
1.6%
436
631
11
10
6
16
45
0,4%
198
214
12
1
1
2
8
0,1%
156
158
13
40
4
1
45
60
03%
113
158
14
66
7
73
53
04%
1,200
1,273
15
94
13
5
112
248
1,1%
27,804
27,916
Totals
1,014
967
744
2,725
29,573
1WOYO
36,221
38,946
Large Full Capture System Locations
Potential locations for large full capture systems were identified through a combination of desktop
analyses and preliminary field visits to potential sites. These efforts identified stormwater catchments
(i.e., land areas draining to a discharge point to a surface water body) that are >10 acres in size and have
PLU areas within their boundaries, as documented on the City's baseline trash generation map. The
boundaries of each stormwater catchment were delineated using available information on the City's
storm drain network and contour elevations. One or more locations to potentially site a large full capture
system within each catchment were then identified based on a combination of Google Street View and
GIS data.
The process described above identified 30 potential locations for large full capture systems. These
locations are in six (6) of the City's fifteen (15) TMAs (i.e., TMAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7). Detailed maps of each
of these potential locations are provided in Appendix C. The land areas draining to these 30 locations
form the primary areas of analyses that were used to conduct the cost -benefit evaluation for large full
capture systems and compare against a small full capture system approach. These 30 catchments cover
59% of the City's PLU areas with moderate or high levels of trash generation.
While some TMAs only had one feasible large full capture system location identified, others had multiple
locations. Each of the potential large full capture system locations were assigned an identification based
on 1) the associated TMA (e.g., 1, 2, 3); 2) the main catchment within that TMA (i.e., A, B or C); and 3) an
option number (ascending from upstream to downstream).
The catchments for each of the 30 potential large full capture system locations are shown in Table 2. The
number of bus stops in each catchment is also shown. For the purposes of calculating trash reduction
benefit, each bus stop is assumed to cover 200 square feet.
Since catchments boundaries for each potential large capture system location are based on stormwater
hydrology and the configuration of the City's storm drain system, not land use, each potential location
drains both PLU and non-PLU areas. For small capture systems, it was also assumed that both PLU and
non-PLU areas would be addressed. For the purposes of the analysis conducted in this technical memo,
however, trash reduction benefits associated with non -PLUS were not considered. Table 2 summarizes
the PLU areas that would be addressed should a large full capture system be constructed at the locations
identified.
0
Table 2. PLU and Non-PLU land area (acres) with low, moderate or high trash generation in seven Trash Management Areas (TMAs) that would be addressed by
potential large trash full capture systems in 30 primary stormwater catchments in the City of Redding.
TMA
Catchment Ib
Option'
PLU
Area (acres)
Non-PLU
Area (acres)
# Bus Stops
Total Area
Low Mod High Total' Total Low Mod High
(acres)
FTC01A
--
4
18
7
28
107
1
3
1
135
FTC01B
6
29
37
72
52
0
3
3
124
1
39
68
62
169
382
4
8
3
551
1
2
33
39
56
128
299
2
5
3
427
FTC01C
3
22
34
56
112
270
1
4
3
382
4
19
20
37
76
248
1
3
3
324
2
FTCO2A
--
14
6
14
34
95
1
2
1
129
1
34
33
62
128
117
1
7
7
245
2
8
3
0
11
8
0
2
0
19
FTC03A
3
15
4
52
70
90
1
1
6
160
4
6
5
9
20
13
0
2
1
33
3
1
0
6
31
36
33
0
1
3
69
FTC03B
2
0
6
31
36
33
0
1
3
69
FTC03C
19
10
27
57
34
0
2 1
2
91
FTC03D
0
0
8
8
2
0
0
0
10
1
3
31
5
39
15
0
3
1
54
FTC04A
2
3
31
5
39
12
0
3
1
51
1
18
25
7
50
93
0
1
1
143
4
FTC04B
2
17
22
4
43
82
0
1
0
125
FTC04C
-
0
33
9
42
8
0
1
1
50
FTC04D
46
24
7
77
20
6
1
0
97
FTC04E
66
166
166
398
586
11
10
13
984
1
7
18
12
37
223
2
2
3
260
6+
;FTC06A
2
4
4
5
13
71
0
1
1
84
3
3
13
7
23
135
2
0
2
158
FTC07A
2
22
11
34
121
0
3
0
155
1
2
17
8
27
54
1
2
1
81
7
FTC07B
2
2
10
3
15
49
1
1
0
64
3
0
5
3
8
3
0
1
1
11
FTC07C
1
18
5
23
95 1
0
0
0
118
'Options for each of the catchments may overlap and therefore address the same areas.
b For the purposes of calculating trash reduction benefit, each bus stop is assumed to cover 200 square feet or 0.0046 acres.
Small Full Capture System Locations
Small trash full capture systems (e.g., connector pipe screens or catch basin inserts) are installed in storm
drain inlets or catch basins and are alternatives to large trash capture systems. Locations for potential
small capture systems were identified using the storm drain system network geodatabase provided by
the City. From these GIS maps, all publicly owned catch basins receiving trash from adjacent moderate or
high trash generating areas were evaluated. For publicly owned catch basins that are hydraulically
connected to each other (i.e., daisy -chained), some upstream catch basins were excluded from the
analysis because a downstream small capture system would likely treat the associated upstream area.
Additionally, publicly owned catch basins in low trash generating areas, that appear to not be functional
or are abandoned, do not have good access were excluded from the analysis. Privately owned catch
basins were also not included as part of the analysis due to limited GIS data on their locations.
Based on the GIS analysis, a total of 655 publicly owned catch basins inlets that address trash from PLU
areas were identified as potential locations for small trash full capture systems in the City. The catch
basins identified are in all 15 TMAs and include those on California State Highway segments that drain
PLU areas. A full list of the catch basins identified for consideration of small full capture systems and their
locations are provided in Appendix D. Of these 655 inlets, 428 are located within the stormwater
catchments associated with the 30 potential large capture system locations described in the previous
section. The costs and benefits of installing and maintaining the small full capture systems within these 30
catchments are compared to the installation and maintenance of large systems. Costs and benefits
associated with installing/maintaining small full capture systems in the 227 inlets that drain moderate or
high trash generation PLU areas that are located outside of the 30 catchments are also presented. The
number of inlets identified for potential small full capture systems in each TMA are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Storm drain catch basins in the public right-of-way identified in City of Redding Trash Management Areas
(TMAs) for potential installation of small trash full capture systems.
Trash
# of Catch Basins for Small Full Capture Systems
Management
Area (TMA)
Within the 30 Catchments for Outside of the 30 Catchments
Large Systems for Large Systems
Total
1
199 40
239
2
5 7
12
3
122 12
134
4
56 0
56
5
0 14
14
6
10 27
37
7
31 66
97
8
0 38
38
9
1 1
2
10
0 5
5
11
0 5
5
12
0 1
1
13
0 3
3
14
0 2
2
15
4 6
10
Total
428 227
655
0
Preliminary planning level cost estimates and the estimated trash load reduction benefits5 associated with
installing and maintaining trash full capture systems were calculated for large and small system scenarios.
The estimated costs and benefits of large systems were developed for each of the 30 potential locations
identified. For small systems, costs and benefits were developed for both those inlets located within and
outside of the 30 catchments delineated for large systems.6
The cost estimates presented in this section were developed using methods and assumptions described
in Appendix E and should be considered preliminary planning -level estimates that may not include all
costs associated with the design, planning, purchasing, constructing/installing, and operating and
maintaining the potential full capture system. Costs estimates presented are based on the most readily
available information at the time this evaluation was conducted. Cost estimating for large systems is
dependent upon the size of the system needed to address the full capture storm event (i.e., 1 -yr, 1 -hr).
The methods used to size large full capture systems are described in Appendix F.
Comparisons of capital (base) and on-going operation and maintenance (0&M) costs between small and
large full capture systems are included in this section for the 30 catchments. These comparisons are
provided to assist the City with identifying the most cost-effective full capture system approach to
achieving the goal of the Trash Amendments. For areas outside of the 30 catchments, the estimated costs
and benefits of installing and maintaining small full capture systems are also provided. Should the City
decide to move forward with installing full capture systems (large or small) at the sites identified, more
detailed designed and associated cost estimates will be needed before moving forward with
construction/installation.
Large Full Capture Systems
Estimated base, annual ongoing, and lifecycle (50 -year) costs of installing and maintaining large full
capture systems at the 30 potential locations identified by the City are included in Table 4. Cost estimates
were developed based on methods and assumptions described in Appendix E. Estimated trash reductions
for each individual large full capture location are also included in Table 4.
Based on a field reconnaissance conducted in February 2020, a Baffle Box system would likely be the
most optimal type of large full capture system for nine (9) of the thirty (30) potential locations for large
full capture systems. Costs estimates in Table 4 were developed based on the assumption that Baffle Box
type systems would be installed and maintained at these 9 sites. The costs for the installation of Baffle
Boxes at these sites were derived primarily from a regression curve relating treatment flow to base costs,
as described in Appendix E. During the February 2020 field reconnaissance, ECA determined that in -
channel netting systems would be the most optimal type of large full capture system for the remaining
twenty-one (21) locations. The base and maintenance costs presented for these locations assume that
netting systems would be installed and maintained at these sites. Please note that the costs associated
with in -channel netting systems are not readily available due to their limited application to -date, and
therefore the costs are likely dependent upon the vendor and the type of netting system installed. Costs
assumptions for end -of -pipe netting systems were used in place of assumptions for in -channel systems
but may not fully include all anticipated costs such as the construction of concrete headwalls that would
likely be required to withstand the force of storm flows on the in -channel nets.
s Please note that the Implementation Plan provides an in-depth explanation of how trash loads (gallons/acre) are calculated from trash levels
(acres). Trash reduction benefits are calculated based on the percentage of baseline trash loads addressed by the full capture system(s).
6 The estimated costs and benefits of large and small systems are compared to those associated with other trash control measures in the Final
Cost Benefit Evaluation Report, which includes a cost -benefit evaluation that identifies and recommends the most cost-effective trash control
measure strategy for the City.
0
Table 4. Preliminary planning level cost estimates for addressing trash from moderate and high trash generating areas within the City of Redding via large trash full capture systems in the 30 primary catchments.
Catchment ID
Drainage Area
(acres)
% Trash
Reduction via
Treatment of
PLU areas
Probable Type of Large
Full Capture System
Base Costs
(System, Installation, and
Contingency)
On-going Costs
(Operation/Maintenance)
Total Annual
(50 years) (over 50 years)
Total
Lifecycle Costs
(500 -years)
Total Lifecycle Costs
per % Trash
Reduction via
Treatment of PLU
areas
FTC01A
135
1.1%
In-line Netting
$300,000
$600,000
$12,000
$900,000
$810,000
FTC01B
124
4.5%
Baffle Box
$1,290,000
$75,000
$1,500
$1,400,000
$310,000
FTC0IC-1
552
8.1%
Baffle Box
$1,860,000
$75,000
$1,500
$1,900,000
$240,000
FTC01C-2
427
6.7%
In-line Netting
$525,000
$1,600,000
$31,000
$2,100,000
$320,000
FTC01C-3
382
6.5%
Baffle Box
$1,630,000
$75,000
$1,500
$1,700,000
$260,000
FTC01C-4
324
4,2%
In-line Netting
$500,000
$900,000
$18,000
$1,400,000
$330,000
FTCO2A
130
1.6%
In-line Netting
$180,000
$600,000
$12,000
$780,000
$490,000
FTC03A-1
245
71%
In-line Netting
$400,000
$1,300,000
$25,000
$1,700,000
$240,000
FTC03A-2
19
0,1%
In-line Netting
$30,000
$310,000
$6,100
$340,000
$3,900,000
FTC03A-3
160
5.4%
In-line Netting
$250,000
$900,000
$18,000
$1,200,000
$220,000
FTC03A-4
34
1,1%
In-line Netting
$50,000
$310,000
$6,100
$360,000
$340,000
FTC03B-1
69
3.2%
In-line Netting
$300,000
$600,000
$12,000
$900,000
$280,000
FTC0313-2
69
3.2%
Baffle Box
$988,000
$75,000
$1,500
$1,100,000
$340,000
FTC03C
91
3,0%
In-line Netting
$300,000
$600,000
$12,000
$900,000
$300,000
FTC03D
10
0.8%
In-line Netting
$30,000
$310,000
$6,100
$340,000
$430,000
FTC04A-1
54
13%
In-line Netting
$200,000
$600,000
$12,000
$800,000
$620,000
FTC04A-2
50
1.3%
In-line Netting
$200,000
$600,000
$12,000
$800,000
$620,000
FTC04B-1
142
1A%
Baffle Box
$1,090,000
$75,000
$1,500
$1,200,000
$870,000
FTC04B-2
124
0,9%
In-line Netting
$200,000
$600,000
$12,000
$800,000
$850,000
FTC04C
51
1.8%
Baffle Box
$799,000
$75,000
$1,500
$870,000
$490,000
FTC04D
96
13%
In-line Netting
$150,000
$900,000
$18,000
$1,100,000
$820,000
FTC04E
984
21.0%
In-line Netting
$1,000,000
$2,800,000
$55,000
$3,800,000
$180,000
FTC06A-1
260
1.7%
In-line Netting
$400,000
$900,000
$18,000
$1,300,000
$770,000
FTC06A-2
83
0.6%
In-line Netting
$180,000
$600,000
$12,000
$780,000
$1,300,000
FTC06A-3
159
1.1%
In-line Netting
$200,000
$600,000
$12,000
$800,000
$760,000
FTC07A
155
1,6%
Baffle Box
$970,000
$75,000
$1,500
$1,000,000
$610,000
FTC0713-1
81
1.2%
Baffle Box
$896,000
$75,000
$1,500
$970,000
$800,000
FTC0713-2
64
0.6%
In-line Netting
$200,000
$310,000
$6,100
$510,000
$920,000
FTC0713-3
11
0.5%
In-line Netting
$200,000
$310,000
$6,100
$510,000
$1,100,000
FTC07C
118
0.9%
Baffle Box
$831,000
$75,000
$1,500
$910,000
$990,000
1H
Small Full Capture Systems
The estimated costs and benefits of installing and maintaining small full capture systems are presented in
Table 5 for the 428 catch basins located within the 30 catchments and in Table 6 for the 227 catch basins
located outside of the 30 primary catchments. Cost estimates for small full capture systems were
developed based on methods and assumptions described in Appendix E
It is important to note that the trash reduction benefits of installing small full capture systems is
challenging to estimate, given the limited information regarding the configuration of the City's storm drain
system and its connectivity to PLU and non-PLU areas. The following should be considered when
evaluating the trash reduction benefits of small full capture systems presented in this report:
• Because some land areas drain to storm drain inlets located on private properties, these areas
likely would not be treated by small full capture systems place in inlets in the public ROW.
Therefore, the trash reduction percentages under a small system installation scenario are
inherently lower than those associated with a large system scenario that addresses the same
area/catchment. This is one of the challenges of installing small systems within the public ROW.
• Estimated trash reductions for small systems are based on a desktop analysis that used GIS and did
not include field investigations. Because inflow pipes and flow patterns cannot be determined
without field investigations, the reductions based on desktop GIS methods may be over or
underestimated.
Some inlets likely have physical characteristics that preclude the installation of a small system.
Areas draining to these inlets would therefore not be addressed by a small trash capture system,
although included in the load reductions estimated here in this memorandum. Additionally, inlets
that do not have a vault or are atypical in size or construction (e.g., pipe inlets, raised area drains,
or teepees) cannot generally host a certified small full capture system and therefore have been
excluded from the analysis.
The area treated by a small catch basin system is somewhat dependent upon the type of system
installed. Some systems only treat surface runoff and do not address flows from connecting pipes
(e.g., baskets). For these systems, the area treated would be significantly reduced, compared to
the estimated areas used in this memorandum to estimate trash load reductions. These types of
systems are summarized in Appendix B.
Due to the uncertainties in calculating the area addressed by small capture systems, the trash reduction
estimates provided in Tables 5 and 6 (and 7) should be considered preliminary. Should the City choose to
install small systems, it is recommended that the treatment area for each system (or groups of systems)
should be identified via field investigations and revised in GIS using the results. The associated trash
reductions should be recalculated and revised accordingly prior to reporting reductions to the Regional or
State Water Board.
Table 5. Preliminary planning level cost estimates for addressing trash from moderate and high trash generating areas within the City of Redding via small full capture systems in the 30 primary catchments.
Catchment I D
# of Systems
% Trash Reduction
via Treatment of
PLU areas
Base Costs
(System and Installation)
Ongoing Costs
(Replacement & Operation/Maintenance)
System Replacement Annual
(2x over 50 years) (over 50 years)
Total
(5 0 years)
Total Lifecycle Costs
(50 -years)
Total I-ifecycle, Costs
per% Trash Reduction
via Treatment of PLU
areas
FTC04E
106
10.7%
$106,000
$212,000
$33,000
$1,900,000
$2,000,000
$190,000
12
Table 6. Preliminary planning level cost estimates for addressing trash from moderate and high trash generating areas within the City of Redding via small full capture systems in areas outside of the 30 catchments
for potential large capture systems.
Catchment ID
# of Systems
%Trash Reduction
via Treatment of PLU
areas
Base Costs
(System and Installation)
Ongoing Costs
(Replacement & Operation/Maintenance)
Total Lifecycle Costs
(50 -years)
Total Lifecycle Costs
per % Trash Reduction
via Treatment of PLU
areas
System Replacement
(2x over 50 years)
Annual
(over 50 years)
Total
(50 years)
TMA 1
40
3.6%
$40,000
$80,000
$13,000
$730,000
$770,000
$220,000
TMA 2
7
0.8%
$7,000
$14,000
$2,200
$120,000
$130,000
$170,000
TMA 3
12
1.5%
$12,000
$24,000
$3,800
$210,000
$220,000
$150,000
TMA 4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
TMA 5
14
1.6%
$14,000
$28,000
$4,400
$250,000
$260,000
$170,000
TMA 6
27
2.7%
$27,000
$54,000
$8,500
$480,000
$510,000
$190,000
TMA 7
66
4.5%
$66,000
$132,000
$21,000
$1,200,000
$1,300,000
$290,000
TMA 8
38
3.2%
$38,000
$76,000
$12,000
$680,000
$720,000
$230,000
TMA 9
1
0.0%
$1,000
$2,000
$320
$18,000
$19,000
$470,000
TMA 10
5
0.7%
$5,000
$10,000
$1,600
$90,000
$95,000
$130,000
TMA 11
5
0.2%
$5,000
$10,000
$1,600
$90,000
$95,000
$470,000
TMA 12
1
0.0%
$1,000
$2,000
$320
$18,000
$19,000
$470,000
TMA 13
3
0,2%
$3,000
$6,000
$950
$54,000
$57,000
$290,000
TMA 14
2
0,1%
$2,000
$4,000
$630
$36,000
$38,000
$470,000
TMA 15
6
0.5%
$6,000
$12,000
$1,900
$110,000
$120,000
$270,000
Totals
227
19.4%
$227,000
$454,000
$72,220
$4,086,000
$4,353,000
$224,381
13
Comparison of the Costs & Benefits of Larae and Small Full Capture Svstems
The costs and benefits of installing and maintaining large and small full capture systems to address trash
generated in PLU areas were compared. Comparisons were made based on the total estimated
accumulated (50 -year lifecycle) costs associated with the installation and maintenance of each type of
system(s). The results of the comparison are provided in Table 7. The most cost-effective implementation
scenario for each catchment is identified as the scenario that has the lowest lifecycle costs per each
percent trash reduction.
Based on the comparison, the most cost-effective full capture scenario for 3 out of the 30 catchments is a
large full capture system. Small full capture systems have lower estimated life -cycle costs for the
remaining 27 catchments. Small full capture systems are the only feasible option identified to address
trash from PLU areas outside of the 30 catchments.
These results suggest that that if the City were to primarily take a full capture approach to addressing the
goal of the Trash Amendments, then installing a combination of small and large full capture systems in
the 30 catchments of interest would be the most cost-effective approach. The proposed optimal cost-
effective full capture approach outlined in Table 7 for large (n=3) and small devices (n=112) within the 30
catchments could achieve a maximum of 56% trash reduction, and the installation of small devices
outside of the 30 catchments (n=227) would achieve an additional trash reduction of 19%. Together, the
installation of large and small systems in the City's MS4 would achieve an estimated 75% trash reduction.
Based on the current understanding of the configuration of the City's MS4 and its connectivity to PLU
areas, it is estimated that the remaining trash reduction needed to achieve the goal of the Trash
Amendments (i.e., approximately 25%) would need to be achieved via the implementation of trash
controls other than the installation of trash full capture systems owned and operated by the City. Many
PLU areas are assumed to have private drainage systems that connect to the City's MS4 storm drain lines
(i.e., not the City -owned inlets in the public right-of-way) and therefore small full capture systems
installed in inlets in the public right-of-way would not address trash from these PLU areas. Additionally,
other locations for large full capture systems do not appear to be feasible to address trash from these
areas draining to inlets on private properties. As discussed in the City's broader Trash Control Measure
Evaluation (January 2022), the City will need to consider implementing other types of trash control
measures to ensure that trash from these areas is addressed and the overall Trash Amendments goal is
achieved.
14
Table 6. Comparison of estimated costs and benefits for Large and Small Trash Full Capture Systems within the 30 primary catchments.
a % reductions estimated for small full capture may be less than the % reductions for large full capture because of trash generating areas draining to catch basins on private land areas that would not be addressed via small devices located in the public ROW.
15
Large Full Capture Systems
Small Full Capture Systems
Catchment
10
Lifecycle Cost
(50 years)
%Trash Reduction
from PLU areas
Total Lifecycle Casts per %
y
Trash Reduction via
Treatment of PCU areas
Lifecycle Costs
(50 years)
# Devices
%Trash
Reductions
Total Lifecycle Costs per
y
%Trash Reduction via
Treatment of PCU areas
Most Cost-effective
Full Capture
Scenario
FTC01A
$900,000
1.1°l0
$810,000
$260,000
14
1.0%
$250,000
Small
FTC01B
$1,400,000
4.5%
$310,000
$1,200,000
59
4.5%
$270,000
Small
FTC01C-1
$1,900,000
8.1%
$240,000
$2,400,000
126
8.1%
$300,000
Large
FTC01C-2
$2,100,000
6.7%
$320,000
$1,800,000
99
6.7%
$270,000 '
Small
FTC01C-3
$1,700,000
6.5%
$260,000
$1,800,000
94
6.5%
$280,000
Large
FTC01C-4
$1,400,000
4.2%
$330,000
$840,000
45
4.2%
$200,000:
Small
FTCO2A
$780,000
1.6%
$490,000
$95,000
5
0.6%
$150,000 ,
Small
FTC03A-1
$1,700,000
7.1%
$240,000
$530,000
28
3.4%
$160,000
Small
FTC03A-2
$340,000
0.1%
$3,900,000
$57,000
3
0.1%
$6$0,000
Small
FTC03A-3
$1,200,000
5.4%
$220,000
$310,000
16
2.5%
$130,000
Small
FTC03A-4
$360,000
1.1 %
$ 340,000
$150,000
8
0.9%
$160,000
Small
FTC03 B-1
$900,000
3.2%
$280,000
$ 290,000
15
2.2%
$130,000 '
Small
FTC0313-2
$1,100,000
3.2%
$340,000
$290,000
15
2.2%
$130,000 i
Small
FTC03C
$900,000
3.0%
$300,000
$290,000
15
1.9%
$150,000
Small
FTC03D
$340,000
0.8%
$430,000
$77,000
4
0.6%
$120,000
Small
FTC04A-1
$800,000
1.3%
$620,000
$220,000
12
0.7%
$320,000
Small
FTC04A-2
$800,000
1.3%
$620,000
$220,000
12
0.7%
$320,000
Small
FTC0413-1
$1,200,000
1.4%
$870,000
$150,000
8
0.5%
$270,000
Small
FTC0413-2
$800,000
0.9%
$850,000
$120,000
6
0.3%
$350,000
Small
FTC04C
$870,000
1.8%
$490,000
$150,000
8
0.5%
$280,000
Small
FTC04 D
$1,100,000
1.3%
$820,000
$210,000
11
0.8%
$280,000
Small
FTC04E
$3,800,000
21.0%
$180,000
$2,000,000
106
10.7%
$190,000
Large
FTC06A-1
$1,300,000
1.7%
$770,000
$170,000
9
0.8%
$210,000
Small
FTC06A-2
$780,000
0.6%
$1,300,000
$38,000
2
0.2%
$180,000
Small
FTC06A-3
$800,000
1.1 %
$ 760,000
$130,000
7
0.6%
$220,000
Small
FTC07A
$1,000,000
1.6%
$610,000
$360,000
19
1.5%
$230,000 '
Small
FTC07B-1
$970,000
1.2%
$800,000
$210,000
11
0.9%
$240,000
Small
FTC0713-2
$510,000
0.6%
$920,000
$77,000
4
0.3%
$290,000
Small
FTC0713-3
$510,000
0.5%
$1,100!000
$95,000
5
0.5%
$210,000
Small
FTC07C
$910,000
0.9%
$990,000
$19,000
1
0.1%
$290,000
Small
Outside of 30 Primary Catchments
NA
NA
NA
$4,353,000
227
1 19.4%
1 $2.24,381
1 Small
a % reductions estimated for small full capture may be less than the % reductions for large full capture because of trash generating areas draining to catch basins on private land areas that would not be addressed via small devices located in the public ROW.
15
A-1
City of Redding Baseline Trash Generation Map (Revised in August 2021)
A-2
*." !► wMaTt
The State Water Board defines a trash full capture system as follows
A single system (or a series of systems) that traps all particles that are 5 mm or greater and has a
design treatment capacity that is either: a) of not less than the peak flow rate, Q, resulting from a
one-year, one-hour, storm in the subdrainoge area, or b) appropriately sized to, and designed to
carry at least the same flows as, the corresponding storm drain." (State Water Board 2015)
In 2017, the State Water Board developed a list of certified full trash capture systems which may be
installed to comply with the Trash Amendments.' Full trash capture systems must trap all particles
retained by a 5 -millimeter mesh screen and have a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak
flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm event. Systems certified by the State Water Board
include larger "end -of -pipe" and "in-line" netting and screening systems, and smaller screening systems
installed in storm drain vaults or catch basins. Descriptions of both large and small full capture systems
are included in this section.
Large Full Capture Systems
Large systems can treat an entire stormwater catchment area, including storm drains on private property,
and provide a single location for maintenance, saving operation and maintenance resources over time.
Two disadvantages of large systems are the relatively high capital and construction costs, which require a
large initial funding source, and the higher instance of subsurface utility conflicts at desired locations
within highly urbanized areas.
There are three types of large full capture systems currently certified by the State Water Board -
hydrodynamic separators, gross solids removal devices, and netting systems. Each of these types of large
systems have been installed in the Bay Area. Examples of these types of systems are provided in this
section. The selection of large systems for reducing trash will depend on the characteristics of a specific
location, hydraulic impacts, potential for environmental permitting, and resulting trash load reduction
percentage.
Hydrodynamic Separators — Vortex Separator
The most common large system installed within the Bay Area is a hydrodynamic separator (HDS), also
known as a vortex separator or swirl concentrator (Figure Al). These systems are produced by several
manufacturers, each with their own design, but all contain large cylindrical separation chambers in which
stormwater enters, creating a vortex to separate trash, debris, oil, and other pollutants from stormwater.
The velocity is highest at the outer edge of the vortex, keeping trash and debris from clogging outflow
holes and allowing the stormwater to leave the cylinder. Heavier material settles to the bottom of the
storage sump, and floatables remain on the surface of the water within the separator cylinder.
Trash, debris, and sediment is usually removed from the HDS with a vacuum truck, however, alternative
systems may be fitted with a large basket to collect settled material, which is subsequently removed via a
boom truck and emptied into a container for disposal. HDS units have the advantage of having a relatively
small footprint and offer additional flexibility in their installation locations when compared to other types
'Future approvals of new trash full capture systems will bead ministered by the State Water Board through implementation of the statewide
Trash Amendments. https.(�www.waterboards.ca.gov water issues rogrrams stormwaterjdocs[trash implementation a1 certified fcd=pdf
IN
of large systems. HDS units come in a large variety of types and sizes, and may be scaled up to handle
peak flows of several hundred cubic feet per second. They can also be small enough to be retrofitted into
existing manholes. Studies have shown that HDS units can be highly effective at trapping trash.
Although there are many advantages to HDS units for trash control, they also have their disadvantages.
Compared to other types of large systems, HDS units can have high capital costs. Additionally, for large
drainage areas (e.g., >300 acres), the sump depths for HDS units may need to be greater than 25 feet,
which poses a maintenance challenge given that typical atmospheric pressure limits vertical suction lift of
pumps (i.e., vacuum trucks). Additional booster pumps are therefore needed to clean HDS sumps at these
depths.
Figure Al. (Left) Diagram of a Contech CDS° hydrodynamic separator (Source:
www.conteches.com/products/stormwater-management/treatment). (Right) Separator Cylinder of
Contech CDS° hydrodynamic separator (Courtesy of City of San Jose).
Hydrodynamic Separators — Nutrient/Debris Separating Baffle Boxes
Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes (NSBB) and Debris Separating Baffle Boxes (DSBB) are both a type of
hydrodynamic separator designed with a shallower depth than a vortex separator (Figure A2). Treatment
flow rates vary by size and configuration of the unit. Stormwater enters a rectangular chamber with a
screening system suspended above sedimentation chambers to separate trash, debris, oil, and other
pollutants from stormwater.
The NSBB/DSBB screening system stores trash and debris in a dry state which minimizes nutrient
leaching, bacterial growth, and odors. All collected material within the screening system and sump is
removed with a vacuum truck. NSBB/DSBB units are shallower than vortex separators, reducing the need
for shoring during construction. NSBB and DSBB unit configurations are available for in-line or off-line
installation. At least two NSBB/DSBB units are currently installed in the Bay Area, with several more
planned.
The disadvantages to NSBB/DSBB units for trash control include the need for a larger footprint for siting
the system and the limited information on maintenance and operation. Because the design of the
NSBB/DSBB requires a larger horizontal footprint than vortex separators, utility and ROW conflicts may
pose a challenge to installation and maintenance. Additionally, since these systems are relatively new
types of trash controls, maintenance experience and considerations are generally not well established.
Figure A2. Bio Clean Debris Separating Baffle Box (Source: https://biocleanenvironmental.com/debris-
separating-baffle-box/).
Gross Solids Removal Systems (GSRD)
Gross solids removal devices (GSRD) have also been installed in the Bay Area (Figure A3). A GSRD may be
installed as a series of screens in-line, within a channel, at the end of a pipe, or within the forebay of a
stormwater pump station. As stormwater enters the GSRD, trash and debris are captured inside the
screens and water exits through 5 mm wide gaps (i.e., screen louvers). GSRDs may be installed in a linear -
radial configuration to treat flows from pipes that are 12 to 72 inches in diameter to the desired capacity
or within the forebay of a stormwater pump station as a flat -panel configuration. A GSRD may require a
large horizontal footprint compared to the other systems but may be the best option if space is not a
consideration.
The linear -radial configuration is maintained by opening the length of the system and vacuuming trash
and debris stored within the system. The flat -panel configuration is maintained by removing trash and
debris adhering to the panels. Figure B4 shows the GSRD installed at the Wrigley -Ford pump station in the
City of Milpitas. The Milpitas system is a linear -radial and flat -panel configuration. Additional information
on GSRDs may be found on the Roscoe Moss Company website, the manufacturer of the systems
(https:/Iroscoemoss.com/products/stormwater-gross-solids-removal-device/).
Disadvantages to the GSRD include siting and maintenance challenges. Siting can be difficult in certain
situations due to the extent of the footprint needed to construct and maintain the device. Additionally,
maintenance challenges with extruding the material captured by the GSRD are common with these types
of devices.
B-3
Figure A3. Cut away view of Linear Radial Configuration #1 (LR -1) screen (courtesy of the American
Society of Civil Engineers Publications).
Figure A4. Gross solids removal device (GSRD) in linear -radial configuration (Left) and installed in the City
of Milpitas (Right).
Netting Systems
Netting systems rely on the force of flowing water to trap floatables in disposable nylon mesh bags of
varying mesh sizes and storage volumes. The typical configuration is a large net installed end -of -pipe,
however, the manufacturers indicate that these nets can also be placed in-line. Netting systems may be
designed and installed to treat any size of catchment but are most commonly used to treat relatively
large catchments. Two types of netting systems are available. The first is the NetTech manufactured by
Oldcastle Stormwater Solutions (formerly KriStar Enterprises, Inc.) and requires very little infrastructure
to install. It can be installed with a relatively small initial cost relative to the other types of systems. This
system is placed over the entire outfall and is attached to the outfall with a tether (Figure AS). It is
designed to detach with a certain amount of force, usually when the net is full. Once full, the net closes
and detaches, and the tether prevents the net from moving down stream. The net requires a minimum
MW
footprint of ten feet between the outfall and the receiving water body and must be placed on a concrete
pad.
Figure AS. Oldcastle Stormwater Solutions NetTech Gross Pollutant Trap within City of Vallejo (Source:
https://oldcastleprecast.com).
The second type of netting system is the TrashTrap manufactured by StormTrap Technologies Inc.
(formerly Fresh Creek Technologies Inc.). It requires a structure to house the netting system (Figure A6).
The nets are designed not to detach automatically. An overflow screen is located above the nets so that
any excess flows can easily bypass. Once full, nets are removed with a boom truck and disposed. New
nets may be installed to eliminate the cleaning of existing nets. This netting system can be easily scaled
up, has negligible headloss (does not increase upstream flooding) when cleaned regularly, and may be
installed under water or within tidal areas, allowing it to be installed in more types of locations than the
other systems. This flexibility is particularly important in San Mateo of San Mateo where many of the
outfalls have significant tidal influence or partially submerged.
Figure A6. StormTrap Technologies End -of -Pipe Netting TrashTrap° (Courtesy of StormTrap Technologies,
Inc.).
Im
Concrete
/
Headwall
^w.y /
Hinged Bypass
va
O p9,
Screen
_
Hinged
y�
Grating
Flow
II
)rector
vl
Pl ate
�
Safety
Handrail
ar
Mesh13ag
Support '"^
FiberglassFrame
..
Drain Grating.
Disposable
Mesh Bag,'....:
Figure A6. StormTrap Technologies End -of -Pipe Netting TrashTrap° (Courtesy of StormTrap Technologies,
Inc.).
Im
Concrete
/
Headwall
^w.y /
Hinged Bypass
va
O p9,
Screen
_
Hinged
Grating
Flow
II
)rector
Pl ate
OSHA
Safety
Handrail
--Stoplogs
Mesh13ag
Support '"^
FiberglassFrame
..
Drain Grating.
Disposable
Mesh Bag,'....:
Figure A6. StormTrap Technologies End -of -Pipe Netting TrashTrap° (Courtesy of StormTrap Technologies,
Inc.).
Im
Small Full Capture Systems
Screening systems that are installed in stormwater catch basins (or catch basins) are commonly known as
catch basin inserts (CBIs). CBIS are placed inside a catch basin to prevent trash, organic material (e.g.
leaves and twigs) and sediment from entering the storm drain outflow pipe within the catch basin. There
are two general designs of CBIs, catch basin inserts and outlet inserts. Catch basin inserts are placed
inside the catch basin, while outlet inserts are placed in front of the outlet pipe. A wide variety of CBI
designs exist, mostly in the form of outlet inserts (e.g., connector pipe screens) that are placed in front of
the outlet pipe. Figure A7 shows examples of connector pipe screens (CPSs) installed in the Bay Area.
Figure A8 illustrates a catch basin insert manufactured by Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc. CBIs
that use filtering walls or filter media are not applicable for trapping trash and do not meet the full trash
capture standard. As a result, the term "insert" does not refer to configurations that use filter media for
removing other stormwater pollutants.
Maintenance is performed with a vacuum truck or manually with a shovel. At a minimum, maintenance is
performed at least once per year to ensure that the system meets the full capture standard. If the system
is observed to have a plugged or blinded screen or is greater than 50 percent full during a maintenance
event, the maintenance frequency should be increased so that the system is neither plugged nor more
than half full at the next maintenance event.
Figure A7. Small Connector Pipe Screens installed in catch basins within the Bay Area.
:.
Figure A8. Catch basin insert manufactured by Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc.
Im
.;1111111 ill+ .{
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
W:
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15
C-16
C-17
mm
mm
C-20
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-24
C-25
C-26
C-27
C-28
r . • • "+ .,
D-2
D-3
1 1-7'��
�44
St
—C
Ln
sc
us N40 me St
Industila
E Oy pmss
Ave
na I A�
Dr -1
.... ......
-FTCU
Rl
A
FTCO2A
Mists
I
qII,
�T-
D-3
D-4
1
H` irW 1 tMLR* .'�A:t
D-5
{
�+ES RlFr3 f
> c
� c
Tbuon D,
}
i7""Orf :.Cir
� �€y'tiNi1�ik�(lS'1�., �4• i�} �
W
�
L �z
C
� � � «�.^i � �+�F
i__
14-0
Dr
T``t
V e] p
4
A� t{
1
H` irW 1 tMLR* .'�A:t
D-5
{
�+ES RlFr3 f
a
a,
a.
tD�
3
z,
�
rz
1
w
4
�
i
g3.'s hg's
w
z�
17a
r"r
�
�.
46
rr
t"cj%%sy D,
1
3t
n-4
N
D-7
IP 7�
D-7
s
tin
+
FT u 'i
ytt
FTC
07A FT(�76
FTC7,Bt .
FTC 7C
� Omsk Rd
4 ry
''�aEs ➢3r
4QP
v
t
r
�J
et WDr
,
ek Fri
4i
f �
1
Rud#
s`Wer Ln
j
s
ytt
''�aEs ➢3r
t
�J
ek Fri
4i
1
L
;,...
Ad, R ,
1.�
K E r
a
01
w..
�...,
T
a} .
,
wx
fieM
0
vvow�
l
n.
0 E
{
w
}
�'e�Y1$nuST
Yx
Y
t
15
Y
ry `
q
S
n
T�i'.'lag
i
All
d"IVNN
,. M e
a
y
mm
mm
Zbe X`vv Cr
�.
t
�a}
sk
>y
i; iH
4t-
JW Li
S' i,,, ,,, i t i
i.
w
v -
(
N
Ak1;l
6
pti 9rJ aa:`ug L.
€i09F
u
rcAll
n
°=
S
NF
t
s`r
j
E.
�
is
Y
Of 105 P Avb
Ifi 44
a❑if.Aum '.
Selladomrs St
Raw Awe3
K.
�
_ r
Yxn
,
•�
iS:��
Fa
�-7:(ert Rift Sr'
ax
3 ']
t?Agti551 L!s
mm
6
`S?6dr�nk Ln Rd
UY
etr
W R
1
4.,
r-
11
Ct
ky/
(,p
P, a
'ed
Benton Dr
x
L .aP, tiA wor,
'ff
0
m,A
a�
at
au41161rd ..,,
anP��A
i`
Riverside Cir �
.� "*
r l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
1 17788
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
1
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.5799
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.386
2 17807
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5794
-122.386
3 17815
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5821
-122.387
4 17820
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5819
-122.387
5 17821
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5821
-122.387
6 17822
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5816
-122.387
7 17784
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5856
-122.382
8 17813
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5831
-122.388
9 17816
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5829
-122.387
10 18768
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5847
-122.385
11 18769
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5845
-122.385
12 17847
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5855
-122.382
13 15117
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5898
-122.378
14 15118
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5896
-122.378
15 15119
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5894
-122.378
16 15120
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5888
-122.378
17 15121
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5888
-122.379
18 15124
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5886
-122.38
19 15125
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5887
-122.38
20 17879
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5886
-122.38
21 17880
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5883
-122.379
22 17882
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5875
-122.38
23 17883
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5885
-122.379
24 17886
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5888
-122.38
25 16590
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5752
-122.372
26 17901
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5784
-122.376
27 17909
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5844
-122.375
28 17828
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5815
-122.384
29 17829
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5812
-122.384
30 17922
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5769
-122.373
31 17929
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5771
-122.371
32 17935
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5892
-122.378
33 18700
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5891
-122.378
34 18485
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
1
NA
40.5872
-122.379
35 21021
AREADRAIN CITY
1
NA
40.5746
-122.375
36 18772
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5837
-122.385
37 18697
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.5899
-122.377
38 17904
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
NA
40.575
-122.376
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
39 23619
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <:::
AREADRAIN
C)wngr
CITY
.TMA
1
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.5751
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.376
40 18487
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
NA
40.5879
-122.381
41 17293
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5879
-122.399
42 17295
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01A
40.587
-122.4
43 17286
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5872
-122.4
44 18428
AREADRAIN
CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5868
-122.4
45 17269
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5859
-122.405
46 17270
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5859
-122.405
47 17290
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5863
-122.401
48 16233
AREADRAIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5885
-122.396
49 15132
AREADRAIN
CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5877
-122.392
50 16482
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5877
-122.386
51 15514
AREADRAIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5889
-122.388
52 15546
AREADRAIN
CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5866
-122.391
53 15566
AREADRAIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5883
-122.395
54 15568
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5881
-122.395
55 15608
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5868
-122.397
56 17420
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.587
-122.397
57 18776
AREADRAIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5864
-122.386
58 20178
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5887
-122.388
59 15085
AREADRAIN
CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5856
-122.391
60 15086
AREADRAIN
CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5854
-122.391
61 15088
AREADRAIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5851
-122.39
62 15092
AREADRAIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5841
-122.389
63 15140
AREADRAIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5896
-122.395
64 17859
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5897
-122.388
65 17862
CATCHBASIN
CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5872
-122.388
66 17863
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5871
-122.388
67 17864
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5871
-122.388
68 17436
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5896
-122.391
69 17442
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5895
-122.39
70 17443
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5896
-122.389
71 17444
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5893
-122.39
72 17445
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5891
-122.39
73 16828
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5899
-122.388
74 17401
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5848
-122.389
75 17402
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5845
-122.39
76 17449
CATCHBASIN
CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5892
-122.39
D-7
C#ty'JGat h
#
sn"Jb
77 17450
Gatch Bair Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
1
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC01B
Latitude ..
40.5891
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.39
78 17457
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.589
-122.388
79 20312
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5902
-122.394
80 15091
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5845
-122.389
81 15094
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5836
-122.39
82 15139
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5897
-122.395
83 15538
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5864
-122.391
84 15539
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5864
-122.391
85 15556
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5898
-122.395
86 17424
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5897
-122.395
87 17425
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5898
-122.395
88 17399
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5848
-122.39
89 17400
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5846
-122.389
90 17410
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5846
-122.39
91 18779
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5857
-122.386
92 18780
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5855
-122.386
93 17869
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5864
-122.388
94 17870
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5862
-122.387
95 17451
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5861
-122.389
96 17453
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.586
-122.389
97 17458
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5859
-122.389
98 15138
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5895
-122.396
99 15554
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.589
-122.396
100 20176
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01B
40.5865
-122.392
101 20730
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.59
-122.393
102 21389
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5845
-122.391
103 20177
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5867
-122.391
104 23534
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5866
-122.391
105 17448
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5896
-122.391
106 17437
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01B
40.5895
-122.391
107 15097
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5826
-122.389
108 15105
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5816
-122.394
109 15109
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5827
-122.395
110 17343
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5808
-122.397
111 17347
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5843
-122.395
112 17348
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5846
-122.395
113 17352
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5836
-122.394
114 17353
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5817
-122.393
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
115 16832
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
1
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC01C-1
Latitude ..
40.5812
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.388
116 15768
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5818
-122.393
117 15771
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5812
-122.394
118 15772
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5812
-122.393
119 15773
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5811
-122.393
120 17789
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.58
-122.388
121 17792
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5792
-122.387
122 17793
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5793
-122.387
123 17806
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.579
-122.387
124 17817
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5803
-122.388
125 17818
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5802
-122.388
126 17819
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5802
-122.388
127 17421
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5856
-122.395
128 17422
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5875
-122.393
129 17426
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5875
-122.394
130 17427
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5875
-122.394
131 18666
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5809
-122.397
132 17310
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5854
-122.397
133 18724
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5792
-122.387
134 18717
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5874
-122.394
135 17261
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5846
-122.398
136 17262
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5847
-122.398
137 17265
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5851
-122.398
138 17266
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5801
-122.399
139 17411
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5817
-122.388
140 17412
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5823
-122.39
141 17413
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5823
-122.39
142 17414
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5825
-122.39
143 17417
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5822
-122.39
144 17418
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5818
-122.388
145 17419
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5816
-122.388
146 17329
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5812
-122.395
147 17331
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.585
-122.396
148 17332
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5833
-122.396
149 17341
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5808
-122.396
150 17342
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5811
-122.396
151 17358
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5816
-122.394
152 17360
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5813
-122.394
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
153 17362
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
1
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC01C-1
Latitude ..
40.5813
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.395
154 17367
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5791
-122.392
155 17356
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5826
-122.394
156 18869
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5826
-122.393
157 18868
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5824
-122.394
158 15106
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5824
-122.394
159 17357
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5825
-122.394
160 15006
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5808
-122.392
161 15101
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5822
-122.391
162 15111
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.585
-122.393
163 18746
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5842
-122.393
164 15763
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5768
-122.392
165 17258
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5803
-122.4
166 17389
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5822
-122.391
167 17392
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.581
-122.392
168 17364
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5799
-122.389
169 18748
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5833
-122.393
170 18721
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5799
-122.389
171 18432
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.583
-122.392
172 19863
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5838
-122.393
173 20060
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5759
-122.392
174 15702
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5744
-122.38
175 17748
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5741
-122.379
176 17802
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5767
-122.387
177 17839
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5768
-122.381
178 20485
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.575
-122.38
179 20486
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5751
-122.38
180 18735
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5746
-122.381
181 17242
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5826
-122.403
182 17243
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5828
-122.402
183 17311
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5851
-122.393
184 17378
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5804
-122.39
185 17382
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5851
-122.392
186 17383
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.585
-122.392
187 17384
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.585
-122.392
188 17385
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5849
-122.393
189 17386
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5852
-122.393
190 17390
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5802
-122.391
mm
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
191 17393
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
.TMA
1
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC01C-1
Latitude ..
40.5803
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.391
192 17398
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5803
-122.392
193 17415
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5804
-122.39
194 17416
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5806
-122.391
195 17370
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5789
-122.389
196 15725
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5773
-122.389
197 17308
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5856
-122.393
198 17374
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5755
-122.389
199 17372
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5757
-122.389
200 15098
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5824
-122.391
201 17257
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5832
-122.402
202 17896
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5758
-122.378
203 15096
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.583
-122.39
204 20731
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5824
-122.392
205 17328
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.581
-122.395
206 17361
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5806
-122.395
207 15770
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.581
-122.394
208 17351
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5834
-122.395
209 19647
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5837
-122.394
210 17321
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5787
-122.394
211 18897
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5786
-122.394
212 17368
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.579
-122.392
213 15569
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5861
-122.393
214 17429
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5862
-122.393
215 17430
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5868
-122.393
216 15564
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5868
-122.393
217 17439
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5863
-122.392
218 17428
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5861
-122.393
219 20246
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5785
-122.396
220 23254
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5846
-122.396
221 17345
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5804
-122.397
222 17423
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5873
-122.393
223 23519
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
1
FTC01C-1
40.5872
-122.394
224 15700
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5738
-122.379
225 10044
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5734
-122.377
226 18855
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5831
-122.402
227 23564
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5823
-122.395
228 23889
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.577
-122.392
mm
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
229 17397
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
1
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC01C-1
Latitude ..
40.582
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.392
230 17335
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5852
-122.397
231 17309
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5853
-122.397
232 17844
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01C-1
40.5752
-122.381
233 17274
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5892
-122.403
234 17278
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5901
-122.404
235 17291
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5893
-122.4
236 15612
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5897
-122.403
237 17275
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5895
-122.402
238 23697
AREADRAIN CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5895
-122.402
239 17292
CATCHBASIN CITY
1
FTC01A
40.5887
-122.399
240 15327
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
NA
40.556
-122.362
241 15330
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
NA
40.5555
-122.362
242 15334
AREADRAIN CITY
2
NA
40.5547
-122.362
243 15326
AREADRAIN CITY
2
NA
40.5564
-122.363
244 17949
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
NA
40.5552
-122.362
245 18016
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
NA
40.5768
-122.361
246 11356
AREADRAIN CITY
2
NA
40.56
-122.357
247 15687
AREADRAIN CITY
2
FTC03C
40.568
-122.372
248 10826
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
FTCO2A
40.5542
-122.353
249 11345
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
FTCO2A
40.5494
-122.353
250 11347
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
FTCO2A
40.5488
-122.353
251 11348
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
FTCO2A
40.5492
-122.353
252 11346
CATCHBASIN CITY
2
FTCO2A
40.5509
-122.353
253 17967
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5727
-122.369
254 19729
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5731
-122.368
255 18669
AREADRAIN CITY
3
NA
40.5721
-122.362
256 17976
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5727
-122.366
257 17994
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5726
-122.363
258 17995
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.572
-122.363
259 17999
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5721
-122.364
260 18000
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5726
-122.364
261 18002
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.572
-122.363
262 18005
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5735
-122.365
263 18007
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5721
-122.363
264 19673
AREADRAIN CITY
3
NA
40.5723
-122.364
265 11125
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5791
-122.354
266 11126
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5801
-122.354
D-12
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
267 10714
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
AREADRAIN CITY
.TMA
3
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.5755
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.358
268 11212
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5773
-122.355
269 11422
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5736
-122.353
270 11425
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5763
-122.358
271 11426
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5776
-122.358
272 11427
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5755
-122.358
273 11429
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5786
-122.358
274 11430
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5767
-122.358
275 11431
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5768
-122.359
276 11434
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5773
-122.358
277 11435
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5753
-122.356
278 11437
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5764
-122.358
279 11438
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5774
-122.358
280 11440
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5757
-122.358
281 11441
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5752
-122.358
282 11448
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5803
-122.358
283 11450
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5801
-122.358
284 11453
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5786
-122.354
285 11454
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5772
-122.353
286 11457
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5754
-122.354
287 11458
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5785
-122.355
288 11459
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5781
-122.355
289 11467
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5756
-122.352
290 11469
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5779
-122.353
291 11470
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.579
-122.353
292 11471
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5756
-122.353
293 11474
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5748
-122.352
294 11476
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5753
-122.353
295 12011
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5748
-122.35
296 12012
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5747
-122.35
297 13113
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5756
-122.349
298 13011
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5753
-122.355
299 11408
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5723
-122.353
300 11420
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5717
-122.353
301 11423
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5709
-122.352
302 14209
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5712
-122.35
303 14213
AREADRAIN CITY
3
NA
40.5728
-122.35
304 11412
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5729
-122.355
D-13
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
305 11409
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
3
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.5734
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.353
306 11416
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5741
-122.355
307 11428
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5746
-122.358
308 11269
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5822
-122.355
309 11417
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5725
-122.353
310 11421
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5724
-122.353
311 11451
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5829
-122.358
312 11452
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5829
-122.358
313 11473
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5748
-122.351
314 11477
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5747
-122.351
315 12013
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5748
-122.351
316 12997
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5827
-122.358
317 21177
AREADRAIN CITY
3
NA
40.5762
-122.354
318 11455
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5785
-122.354
319 12903
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5783
-122.354
320 11462
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5759
-122.355
321 11463
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5759
-122.355
322 11456
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5793
-122.354
323 17657
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03D
40.5716
-122.37
324 17977
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03D
40.5713
-122.367
325 23414
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03D
40.5716
-122.371
326 23408
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03D
40.5716
-122.37
327 11439
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.5787
-122.358
328 10851
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
NA
40.582
-122.358
329 17950
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5613
-122.362
330 15318
AREADRAIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5608
-122.363
331 15319
AREADRAIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5613
-122.363
332 17978
AREADRAIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5666
-122.363
333 17987
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5654
-122.363
334 17988
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5662
-122.363
335 17991
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5639
-122.362
336 17992
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5639
-122.362
337 11377
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5647
-122.356
338 11379
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5682
-122.359
339 11381
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5673
-122.359
340 11387
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5675
-122.357
341 11394
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5678
-122.353
342 11395
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5647
-122.353
D-14
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
343 11396
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <:::
CATCHBASIN
C)wngr
CITY
.TMA
3
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC03A-1
Latitude ..
40.5648
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.353
344 11406
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5648
-122.353
345 13896
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5675
-122.357
346 14519
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5686
-122.354
347 11398
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5682
-122.356
348 11405
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5652
-122.353
349 11407
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5674
-122.353
350 14520
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5681
-122.354
351 16407
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5673
-122.363
352 15286
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5673
-122.363
353 17986
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5674
-122.363
354 17979
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5674
-122.363
355 17981
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.568
-122.363
356 23691
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03A-1
40.5607
-122.364
357 17966
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5709
-122.368
358 17972
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5708
-122.368
359 18791
CATCHBASIN
CALTRANS
3
FTC036-1
40.5712
-122.361
360 18009
AREADRAIN
CALTRANS
3
FTC036-1
40.5709
-122.361
361 13645
AREADRAIN
CALTRANS
3
FTC036-1
40.5709
-122.36
362 13646
AREADRAIN
CALTRANS
3
FTC036-1
40.5712
-122.36
363 18829
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.57
-122.365
364 18831
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.57
-122.365
365 18835
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5699
-122.365
366 18785
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5709
-122.364
367 11389
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5712
-122.358
368 11390
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5722
-122.358
369 11393
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5732
-122.358
370 11392
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5712
-122.358
371 11388
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC036-1
40.5723
-122.358
372 15684
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5692
-122.372
373 17658
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5679
-122.37
374 17959
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5658
-122.369
375 17963
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5667
-122.369
376 17964
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5637
-122.365
377 19676
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.568
-122.37
378 17973
CATCHBASIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5703
-122.369
379 15045
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5683
-122.368
380 15046
AREADRAIN
CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5685
-122.368
D-15
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
381 16522
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
3
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC03C
Latitude ..
40.5683
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.368
382 16524
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5691
-122.368
383 17659
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5696
-122.37
384 16565
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03C
40.5696
-122.369
385 17955
CATCHBASIN CITY
3
FTC03C
40.568
-122.369
386 10131
AREADRAIN CITY
4
NA
40.5906
-122.353
387 11127
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5894
-122.351
388 11165
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5856
-122.346
389 11168
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5858
-122.347
390 11507
AREADRAIN CITY
4
NA
40.591
-122.354
391 11514
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5862
-122.353
392 11515
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5864
-122.353
393 12003
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5856
-122.347
394 12103
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5868
-122.345
395 13003
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5859
-122.355
396 14172
AREADRAIN CITY
4
NA
40.5859
-122.347
397 14652
AREADRAIN CITY
4
NA
40.5895
-122.351
398 11505
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5876
-122.353
399 10786
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5908
-122.351
400 11510
AREADRAIN CITY
4
NA
40.5894
-122.353
401 11508
AREADRAIN CITY
4
NA
40.5892
-122.353
402 10345
AREADRAIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.585
-122.35
403 10884
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
NA
40.5885
-122.353
404 11341
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5864
-122.351
405 11216
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5888
-122.35
406 12040
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5889
-122.349
407 12041
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5897
-122.349
408 12049
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5884
-122.351
409 12053
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5859
-122.349
410 12056
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5858
-122.35
411 11512
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5862
-122.352
412 12064
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.588
-122.347
413 12066
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5859
-122.347
414 21201
AREADRAIN CITY
4
FTC04A-1
40.5885
-122.349
415 12039
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC046-1
40.5881
-122.346
416 12092
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC046-1
40.5893
-122.345
417 12095
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC046-1
40.5906
-122.345
418 12098
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC046-1
40.5907
-122.345
m
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
419 12102
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
4
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC046-1
Latitude ..
40.5906
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.346
420 12173
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC046-1
40.5858
-122.339
421 23344
AREADRAIN CITY
4
FTC046-1
40.5866
-122.341
422 12113
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC046-1
40.5879
-122.343
423 12034
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04C
40.5856
-122.343
424 12035
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04C
40.5855
-122.344
425 12171
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04C
40.5857
-122.341
426 12131
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04C
40.5855
-122.34
427 12144
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04C
40.5856
-122.341
428 12145
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04C
40.5854
-122.339
429 12147
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04C
40.5844
-122.339
430 12146
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04C
40.5856
-122.339
431 11484
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5886
-122.358
432 11487
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5862
-122.356
433 11494
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5913
-122.358
434 11495
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5931
-122.358
435 12765
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5869
-122.358
436 12766
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5861
-122.357
437 21025
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5862
-122.358
438 11491
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5873
-122.358
439 23109
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5929
-122.358
440 23455
AREADRAIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5879
-122.358
441 11502
CATCHBASIN CITY
4
FTC04D
40.5932
-122.358
442 15381
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
40.6299
-122.377
443 18218
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6319
-122.39
444 18219
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6319
-122.39
445 18313
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6245
-122.381
446 18328
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.632
-122.383
447 18338
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6256
-122.375
448 18340
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6247
-122.373
449 18343
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6237
-122.373
450 18345
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6226
-122.374
451 18351
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6285
-122.373
452 18352
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6284
-122.373
453 18353
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6256
-122.373
454 18356
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6316
-122.379
455 18357
CATCHBASIN CITY
5
NA
40.6311
-122.375
456 12257
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5651
-122.324
D-17
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
457 12259
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
6
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.5639
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.324
458 12261
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5663
-122.325
459 12301
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5653
-122.32
460 12304
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5651
-122.32
461 11949
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5621
-122.339
462 11951
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5609
-122.339
463 12239
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5636
-122.328
464 11342
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5609
-122.351
465 13039
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5636
-122.34
466 11874
AREADRAIN CITY
6
NA
40.5636
-122.342
467 10659
AREADRAIN CITY
6
NA
40.5656
-122.346
468 10662
AREADRAIN CITY
6
NA
40.5645
-122.346
469 11372
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.561
-122.353
470 11893
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5637
-122.35
471 11894
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5637
-122.35
472 11895
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5639
-122.35
473 11897
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5639
-122.347
474 11898
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5639
-122.347
475 11899
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5637
-122.347
476 11902
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.571
-122.351
477 11903
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.571
-122.35
478 10667
AREADRAIN CITY
6
NA
40.564
-122.349
479 11403
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5637
-122.353
480 11901
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5637
-122.348
481 21072
AREADRAIN CITY
6
NA
40.5652
-122.35
482 10488
AREADRAIN CITY
6
NA
40.5639
-122.32
483 10646
AREADRAIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.5674
-122.345
484 11988
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.5711
-122.341
485 11872
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.5709
-122.342
486 11908
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.5651
-122.345
487 11913
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.5711
-122.342
488 23146
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.5693
-122.34
489 23149
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.569
-122.339
490 23818
AREADRAIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.5712
-122.342
491 25134
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
FTC06A-1
40.57
-122.34
492 25056
CATCHBASIN CITY
6
NA
40.5638
-122.328
493 15785
AREADRAIN CITY
7
NA
40.5742
-122.391
494 17221
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5731
-122.391
mm
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
495 17545
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <:::
CATCHBASIN
C)wngr
CITY
.TMA
7
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.5344
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.384
496 18534
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5195
-122.381
497 15736
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5712
-122.386
498 17713
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5684
-122.381
499 17743
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5703
-122.383
500 17745
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5708
-122.382
501 17746
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5704
-122.383
502 17771
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5694
-122.378
503 17689
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5708
-122.384
504 17662
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5691
-122.379
505 17691
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5697
-122.384
506 17695
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5679
-122.381
507 19155
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5712
-122.385
508 17563
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5496
-122.388
509 17564
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5495
-122.388
510 17704
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5641
-122.382
511 17720
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5637
-122.38
512 17726
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5639
-122.381
513 17666
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5604
-122.386
514 16542
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5375
-122.389
515 15861
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5485
-122.387
516 15884
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5348
-122.385
517 15898
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5196
-122.384
518 17503
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5205
-122.382
519 17505
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5181
-122.382
520 17501
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5223
-122.383
521 17502
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5214
-122.383
522 16882
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5347
-122.388
523 17549
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5326
-122.385
524 17552
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5388
-122.386
525 17553
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5356
-122.387
526 17479
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5171
-122.382
527 17565
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5464
-122.387
528 18451
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5331
-122.385
529 20052
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5249
-122.383
530 19627
AREADRAIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5354
-122.387
531 21004
AREADRAIN
CALTRANS
7
NA
40.5292
-122.383
532 17189
CATCHBASIN
CITY
7
NA
40.5544
-122.39
m •
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
533 15860
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
AREADRAIN CITY
.TMA
7
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.5474
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.387
534 19702
AREADRAIN CITY
7
NA
40.5418
-122.386
535 17546
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5293
-122.384
536 15902
AREADRAIN CITY
7
NA
40.5227
-122.384
537 15065
AREADRAIN CITY
7
NA
40.5377
-122.384
538 17554
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.539
-122.385
539 15868
AREADRAIN CITY
7
NA
40.5383
-122.384
540 17561
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5374
-122.383
541 15862
AREADRAIN CITY
7
NA
40.5461
-122.387
542 19862
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5675
-122.385
543 17731
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5652
-122.38
544 17719
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5652
-122.38
545 17227
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.574
-122.392
546 17684
AREADRAIN CITY
7
NA
40.5735
-122.387
547 17692
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5731
-122.386
548 17687
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5727
-122.385
549 17676
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5723
-122.383
550 17736
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5719
-122.382
551 17737
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5717
-122.382
552 17754
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5711
-122.38
553 17752
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.571
-122.38
554 16489
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5673
-122.385
555 23420
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.573
-122.377
556 23423
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5719
-122.377
557 17557
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5306
-122.382
558 17226
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
NA
40.5733
-122.392
559 15787
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5687
-122.391
560 17210
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5677
-122.39
561 17211
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5673
-122.39
562 15741
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5684
-122.387
563 19176
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
7
FTC07A
40.569
-122.388
564 15744
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5691
-122.389
565 15745
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
7
FTC07A
40.5691
-122.388
566 16834
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
7
FTC07A
40.57
-122.388
567 17682
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5636
-122.385
568 19169
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5668
-122.389
569 19177
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5686
-122.388
570 19179
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
7
FTC07A
40.5688
-122.388
mm
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
571 19180
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
.TMA
7
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
FTC07A
Latitude ..
40.5685
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.388
572 19187
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5646
-122.385
573 21814
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5655
-122.386
574 21815
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5652
-122.387
575 17218
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5685
-122.389
576 21812
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5656
-122.386
577 19156
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC07A
40.5658
-122.387
578 17214
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC076-1
40.5649
-122.391
579 17220
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC076-1
40.5647
-122.39
580 15801
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
7
FTC076-1
40.5659
-122.388
581 15803
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
7
FTC076-1
40.5623
-122.388
582 15793
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC076-1
40.5624
-122.385
583 17679
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
7
FTC076-1
40.5651
-122.388
584 17683
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC076-1
40.5634
-122.385
585 19185
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
7
FTC076-1
40.5642
-122.387
586 15810
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
7
FTC076-1
40.5651
-122.388
587 21819
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC076-1
40.5647
-122.387
588 15805
AREADRAIN CITY
7
FTC076-1
40.5636
-122.389
589 17667
CATCHBASIN CITY
7
FTC07C
40.559
-122.387
590 15031
AREADRAIN CITY
8
NA
40.6253
-122.369
591 15232
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
8
NA
40.6229
-122.367
592 16576
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6128
-122.387
593 16578
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6127
-122.385
594 16580
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6116
-122.384
595 16582
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6109
-122.381
596 16583
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6136
-122.376
597 15362
AREADRAIN CITY
8
NA
40.6251
-122.368
598 15574
AREADRAIN CITY
8
NA
40.6206
-122.399
599 18264
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6095
-122.38
600 18279
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6096
-122.379
601 18280
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6098
-122.379
602 18173
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6227
-122.404
603 18174
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6273
-122.405
604 18175
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6265
-122.405
605 18181
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6258
-122.404
606 18151
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6171
-122.393
607 18392
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6128
-122.369
608 18393
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6107
-122.37
mm
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
609 18394
l
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
8
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.611
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.369
610 18403
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6228
-122.368
611 19026
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6121
-122.378
612 19615
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6112
-122.368
613 20166
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6241
-122.368
614 18220
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6424
-122.367
615 14529
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
8
NA
40.623
-122.366
616 14528
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
8
NA
40.6232
-122.366
617 13634
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6344
-122.365
618 18400
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6151
-122.367
619 16587
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6129
-122.381
620 16573
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6129
-122.384
621 18293
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6128
-122.37
622 16581
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6107
-122.385
623 19619
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6131
-122.369
624 23849
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6246
-122.368
625 16585
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6123
-122.38
626 25150
AREADRAIN CITY
8
NA
40.612
-122.37
627 18256
CATCHBASIN CITY
8
NA
40.6138
-122.387
628 19555
CATCHBASIN CITY
9
NA
40.6066
-122.376
629 12790
CATCHBASIN CITY
9
NA
40.5908
-122.351
630 13558
CATCHBASIN CITY
10
NA
40.5764
-122.324
631 13246
CATCHBASIN CITY
10
NA
40.5784
-122.321
632 13249
CATCHBASIN CITY
10
NA
40.5784
-122.32
633 20752
AREADRAIN CITY
10
NA
40.5762
-122.324
634 14382
CATCHBASIN CITY
10
NA
40.5731
-122.323
635 15617
AREADRAIN CITY
11
NA
40.5908
-122.406
636 17106
CATCHBASIN CALTRANS
11
NA
40.5859
-122.41
637 17108
CATCHBASIN CITY
11
NA
40.5858
-122.409
638 18477
AREADRAIN CITY
11
NA
40.5891
-122.405
639 17113
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
11
NA
40.5861
-122.408
640 18226
CATCHBASIN CITY
12
NA
40.5988
-122.387
641 16487
CATCHBASIN CITY
13
NA
40.5386
-122.353
642 16488
CATCHBASIN CITY
13
NA
40.5389
-122.354
643 11668
CATCHBASIN CITY
13
NA
40.5381
-122.348
644 11293
CATCHBASIN CITY
14
NA
40.5027
-122.305
645 14398
CATCHBASIN CITY
14
NA
40.4905
-122.295
646 16659
CATCHBASIN CITY
15
NA
40.5733
-122.416
D-22
C#ty'JGat h
A
sn"Jb
647 16662
Gatch Ba�ir� Type <::: C)wngr
CATCHBASIN CITY
.TMA
15
Large....
Capture
C�tchtnent
NA
Latitude ..
40.5749
Lcan�r�ude .'
-122.416
648 12382
CATCHBASIN CITY
15
NA
40.5785
-122.321
649 12155
CATCHBASIN CITY
15
NA
40.5819
-122.339
650 15329
AREADRAIN CITY
15
NA
40.5555
-122.363
651 11464
CATCHBASIN CITY
15
NA
40.5795
-122.353
652 14780
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
15
NA
40.5839
-122.357
653 11906
CATCHBASIN CITY
15
NA
40.5712
-122.347
654 10610
AREADRAIN CALTRANS
15
NA
40.5784
-122.339
655 11443
CATCHBASIN I CALTRANS
15
NA
40.5837
-122.358
D-23
The cost estimates presented should be considered preliminary planning -level estimates and may not
include all costs associated with the design, planning, purchase, construction/installation, and operation
and maintenance associated with each potential full capture system. Assumptions associated with
estimating the costs for small and large systems are included. Costs estimates presented are based on the
most readily available information at the time this Evaluation was conducted. Comparisons of capital and
on-going operation and maintenance (O&M) costs between small and large full capture systems are
included to assist San Mateo with the evaluation of the most cost-effective approaches to achieving
mandated trash load reductions. More detailed cost estimates will be needed should San Mateo decide
to move forward with full capture systems (large or small).
Large Trash Full Capture Systems
Base (i.e., planning, design, materials, and construction) and maintenance costs for large trash full
capture systems were calculated using the information compiled from a comprehensive review of cost
estimates and bids from existing projects in the Bay Area. The base costs for hydrodynamic separators
(HDSs), nutrient/debris separation baffle box (NSBB/DSBB), and gross solids removal devices (GSRD)
generally increase with the expected 1 -year flow, although each site will have specific considerations
(e.g., utility conflicts and permitting) that must be accounted for to accurately estimate costs. To develop
planning -level cost estimates, a power regression was developed based on the review of existing cost
information.
The following assumptions were used to determine base costs for large trash full capture systems:
• The following formula was used to estimate base costs for baffle box devices: $520,499 x
In[Design Flow]—$1,000,000
• 30% of base costs are included in the final costs to account for design costs, administration, and
construction contingencies;
• Systems are installed in areas which do not require major utility relocation, property or easement
acquisition or environmental permitting;
• Systems in channels require the installation of a concrete pad, and may be significantly less
expensive if the concrete is already installed;
• Total costs are presented in the assumed construction year (2019) dollars, and no financing or
discounting costs are included;
• Large systems are assumed to have a lifetime of 50 years and will need to be replaced after this
time; and
• Cost sharing agreements with other agencies such as Caltrans are not factored into this analysis.
Base costs are much higher for large full capture systems than small systems, however, they have
significantly lower maintenance costs over the long-term. Lower maintenance costs often result in lower
lifecycle costs for large systems, compared with small systems. Most costs associated with large systems
are not associated with the system itself, rather with the planning, design, installation, utility conflicts,
and permitting. Installation costs for large systems include mobilization and demobilization, traffic
control, stormwater pollution prevention plan preparation, contractor's markup, excavation, hauling,
shoring, backfilling, dewatering, surface replacement, bypass pumping, diversion structure, and
connections to the storm drainage system. As a result, the overall costs for designing, purchasing and
constructing a large HDS or NSBB/DSBB system often exceed $1M.
The following assumptions were used to determine operation and maintenance cost estimates for large
trash full capture systems:
• Baffle box devices require one maintenance event per year and in -channel netting devices
require four maintenance events per year with each maintenance event taking seven hours; and
• Each maintenance event requires one Vactor Truck Operator, one City Lead Storm Drain
Maintenance Worker, and two temporary City Storm Drain Maintenance Workers at annual FTE
rates of $121,700, $111,965, ad $92,240, respectively.
Figure D1 contains the estimated base cost curve for a baffle box system under different storm flows.
Many of these costs were derived from real cost data provided by Schaff and Wheeler.'
Figure E1. Base cost (including 30% contingency costs) assumptions for a large underground Baffle Box system.
s Also includes cities of Mountain View, San Bruno, San Mateo, South San Francisco and personal communication with Schaaf & Wheeler
Consulting Engineers staff. Maintenance costs were provided by cities of San Jose and Vallejo Flood and Wastewater. Citations can be found in
the References Section of this report. All base and O&M cost estimates presented in Table 9 were smoothed out using best fit regression
curves.
E-2
Small Trash Full Capture Systems
The following assumptions were used to determine base costs for purchasing and installing small trash
full capture systems:
• Connector pipe screens or catch basin inserts are assumed to be installed in catch basin with
dimensions of 24" x 36"; and
• Manufacture and installation costs for each connector pipe screen or catch basin insert is $1,000
per system. Small systems vendors usually lump the costs of manufacturing and installation
together.9
The following assumptions were used to determine cleaning, replacement and maintenance cost
estimates:
• Connector pipe screens or catch basin inserts are cleaned an average of four times a year with
each maintenance event lasting one hour;
• Each maintenance event requires one City Lead Storm Drain Maintenance Worker and one
temporary City Storm Drain Maintenance Worker at an annual FTE rate of $121,700 and $61,655,
respectively; 10
• Replacement of connector pipe screens and catch basin inserts is assumed to occur every 20
years; and
Replacement costs are $1,000, identical to initial manufacture/installation costs
Costs for small full capture systems can range from $450-2400 per system depending on the manufacturer and number of systems installed.
"Annual FTE rates were provided by the City of Redding, and one full time equivalent position was assumed to be 2,000 staff hours in a given
year. Although cost estimates in this report used City staff FTE rates, the City may choose to hire subcontractors. However, prices will vary
depending on labor costs and the need to purchase equipment. Additionally, the City may be unable to hire non-union subcontractors to
maintain the catch basins
E-3
When selecting a large trash full capture system, it is important to consider the size of the drainage area,
hydraulic losses across the system when the system is full, the permitting requirements, system
maintenance and access, property rights, and utility clearance. All factors should be weighed against the
system type, construction costs and future operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to ensure maximum
trash load reduction per dollar spent.
Large systems can be installed off-line from the main trunk with a diversion structure to re -direct the
treatment flow rate. Off-line installations optimize system size since they are not required to have an
overflow capacity equal to the capacity of the existing storm drain line. There is the potential for
increasing the number of utility conflicts with an off-line installation since it requires a greater footprint
for the facility. Existing utilities and right-of-way restrictions may dictate where a large system can be
installed. When the City decides to move forward with implementation of any large trash full capture
system, the location of existing utilities will need to be evaluated. The presence of utilities at proposed
installation locations must be field verified prior to starting any system design.
For sizing large systems, the rational method for estimating peak runoff described in the Santa Clara
County Drainage Manual (Schaaf and Wheeler, 2007) was used. This method has a long history of
usefulness for stormwater conveyance system design in highly urbanized areas characterized by relatively
small watersheds with largely impervious areas. The rational method uses the following equation to
calculate peak runoff:
QT= k CITA
Where: Q = peak discharge (cfs)
T = recurrence interval (years)
k = 1.008 (most often rounded to 1)
C= a dimensionless runoff coefficient
i = the design rainfall intensity (inches per hour) for a
duration equal to the time of concentration11 for the basin
A = drainage area (acres)
Runoff coefficients (C) described in the manual for soil hydrologic group D and listed in Table C1 were
applied to the City's land uses within the catchments or sub -catchments. A recurrence interval (T) of one-
year, consistent with the definition of a full capture system, was used. The design rainfall intensity (i) was
developed for each catchment/sub-catchment using a formula provided the Drainage Manual. The
intensity varies by catchment depending on the Time of Concentration, and therefore is a more accurate
method than using a uniform rainfall intensity (i.e. the 1 -year 1 -hour storm). In general, the larger the
catchment, the longer it will take the peak flow to reach a point downstream. This difference in time will
cause the precipitation intensity (i) to vary by more than a factor of 2 depending on the catchment.
"Time of Concentration is the time needed for water to flow from the most remote point of a catchment to the flow point, or can bethought of
as the time between peak rainfall and peak flow. Rainfall intensity will vary significantly based on this length of time. Rainfall intensities were
verified to match the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) precipitation frequency dataserver
(http_((hdsc_nws.naa< a_v,/hdsc/pfdsJ fds map cant.html)
F-1
Table C1. Runoff Coefficients for Sizing Large Systems
Land Use
Runoff Coefficient (C)
Arterial Road
0.80
Commercial
0.80
Freeways
0.85
Industrial
0.75
Railroad
0.50
Rangeland/Forest
0.30
Residential - High Density
0.75
Residential - Low Density
0.45
Residential — Rural
0.40
Retail
0.80
Schools
0.60
Urban Open Space
0.45
Estimated treatment flow rates for all of the catchments and subcatchments were calculated using the
rational method. Since the rational method is primarily used for catchments under 300 acres, a scaling
factor was used to more closely approximate the one-year flow of larger catchments. The Water Board
has indicated that a simplified rational method that uses a rainfall intensity of 0.2 in/hr is acceptable for
sizing large systems over 50 acres if there is limited space available. However, that methodology would
significantly undersize smaller large systems by more than half in many cases. It is better to use the more
accurate calculation used in this evaluation for estimating the one-year flow so that there is less bypass of
the treatment system.
A more advanced method using hydrologic modelling software such as the U.S Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic
Modeling System (HEC -HMS) could be used to more accurately calculate flows for larger catchments.
However, that is not necessary because all larger catchments would contain a diversion or large overflow
to allow much of the higher flows to bypass the treatment system. Although it changes based on the
characteristics of the catchment, a rough approximation of the relationship between catchment area and
one-year flow is presented in Figure C1. Treatment flow rates for each of the catchments and sub -
catchments are listed in Table C2 and were used to estimate the sizes and costs of potential large trash
full capture systems proposed to treat each catchment. Flow was reduced for Leslie Creek at the
Wastewater Plant to account for using the channel for detention and the limitations of the pump station
that would need to be installed as part of the system.
F-2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Catchment Area (acres)
Figure F1. Approximate relationship between catchment size and design one-year flow.
F-3
IN
Presentation Overview
� i,. � •• � ;; ar � rr �: j� � ,..�< ate. ..i:..
0o, Trash Control Measures Planning and
111, mplementation to date
0o, Planned Next Steps
Statewide Trash Amendments
0o, April 2015 - State Water Resources Control Boar
amended StatewideControl Ptanj
to include requirements for managing trash
discharges from storm drain systems
* Phase I (Large/Medium) and Phase 11 (Smatt and
o Phase 11 - City of Redding
* Catifornia Department of Transportation
o Permitted Industriat Facilities
Statewide Trash Amendments
* Provide statewide consistency in the regulatory approach
Grequirementsi
surfacereduce environmentat issues associated with trash in
generatingwaters
o Focus on high trash areas
a Control trash in Priority Land Use (PLUs) areas within 10 years by:
1.Installing/Maintaining
permits issued by State/Regional Water Boards
Full Trash Capture (FTC) Systems
Small Systems
0- Inserted into storm drains
OP. Address a few acres* many systems
needed
01,, Lower capital is
Higher operation F± maintenance
costs
Courtesy of EOA, Inc.
Courtesy of Contech, Inc. Courtes x
Potential Equivalent Types of Actions*
Oo, Trash Inspections of Private Properties
Oo, Enhanced Street Sweeping
Oo, Expanded On -Land Cleanups
Opo, Enhanced Public Container/Bin
Management
Oo, Enhanced City-wide Public Education and
Outreach Programs
Oo, Municipal Ordinances to Prohibit
gi
Distribution /Sale of Litter -prone Iteml
*Require demonstrationrassessment that
actions are equivatent to FTC systems
City of Redding
Trash Control Measures Planning and
Implementation to Date
Implementation Planning Tasks completed to date-,
ooIdentified /mapped PLU Areas
Established/ mapped Basetine TrashGeneration
o,, Developed Full Capture Equivalency Approach
o, Developed /submitted Initiat Imptementation Nan
o,, Trained staff on On -Land Visuat Trash Assessment
Protocols
o,, Conducted trash source evaluations
o�, Conducted FTC System iii
o,, Developed a Trash Control Measures Cost -Benefit
Evaluation Report
Trash Control Measures Cost -Benefit
Evaluation
Cost-benefitop. Analysis of potential new or enhanced trash control measures neet
to address Trash Amendment requirements
oaof i`
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Optimized Trash Control Measure
Implementation Scenario (#2)
..........
purchase, i ,
maintenance operation and
1
atruck
a Training for maintenance
a Creation and implementation inspection
program/plan
c
ordinance/code Devetopment and enforcement of new
o Approximately ,600 private properties
yearsinspected over the course of 7
Planned Next Steps
o FTC Operation and Maintenance Procedures Et
Training
* Develop Property Inventory and Inspection Plan
* Train City Inspectors
opSubmit Final Trash Implementation Plan - 2024/25
Trashoo, Achievement of Goal b
December