final construction report

FINAL AGREEMENT REPORT

Bicknell Avenue Green Street

Urban Runoff BMP Treatment Demonstration Project

for the State Water Resources Control Board

Agreement #04-414-554-2

March 30, 2010

Another project to improve California‟s watersheds funded in full or in part through agreements with the State

Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) pursuant to Proposition 50, Coastal Non-Point Source Pollution, Santa

Monica Bay Restoration funding, any amendment thereto for the implementation of California‟s Nonpoint Source

Pollution Control Program, all which have been administrated through the SWRCB. The information herein does

not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the SWRCB, nor does mention of trade names or commercial

products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

GRANT SUMMARY

2

City of Santa Monica Final Report 02-225-550-1

March 31, 2010

Completed Grant Summaries are made available to the public on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) website at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/funding/grantinfo.html

Use the tab and arrow keys to move through the form. If field is not applicable, please put N/A in field.

Date filled out: 3/10/10

Grant Information: Please use complete phrases/sentences. Fields will expand as you type.

1. Grant Agreement Number: 04-414-554-0

2. Project Title: Bicknell Green Street Urban Runoff Treatment BMP Demonstration Project

3. Project Purpose – Problem Being Addressed: Reducing urban runoff pollution from highly urbanized

streets through the modification of an existing street into a “green” street containing various BMPs to harvest

and reduce runoff and pollution.

4. Project Goals

a. Short-term Goals: Install a number of BMPs, such as biofilters, infiltration zones, and permeable

paving, to collect and treat urban runoff.

b. Long-term Goals: By removing urban runoff pollution from the street and keeping it out of the storm

drain system and out of the Santa Monica Bay, water quality and beneficial uses of the Bay will be

improved, protected and preserved.

5. Project Location: (lat/longs, watershed, etc.) Santa Monica Bay Watershed, 118o 29” 20‟ W 34

o 02”

10‟ N

a. Physical Size of Project: (miles, acres, sq. ft., etc.) 1 residential block, about 1.5 acres

b. Counties Included in the Project: Los Angeles

c. Legislative Districts: (Assembly and Senate) 41 Assembly; 23 Senate

6. Which SWRCB program is funding this grant? Please “X” box that applies.

Prop 13 Prop 40 Prop 50 EPA 319(h) Other

Grant Contact: Refers to Grant Project Director.

Name: Rod Gould Job Title: City Manager

Organization: City of Santa Monica Webpage Address: www.santa-monica.org

Address: 1685 Main Street, Room 209

Phone: 310.458.8301 Fax: 310.917.6640

E-mail: [email protected]

Grant Time Frame: Refers to the implementation period of the grant.

From: 4/14/05 To: 3/31/10

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/funding/grantinfo.html

3


March 31, 2010

Project Partner Information: Name all agencies/groups involved with project. City of Santa

Monica

Nutrient and Sediment Load Reduction Projection: (If applicable) N/A

4


March 31, 2010

Table of Contents

I. Grant Summary Form 2

II. Table of Contents 4

III. Executive Summary 6

IV. Introduction 6

A. Statement of Project Purpose 6

B. Scope of the Project 7

C. Project Area 8

D. History of Project 8

E. Description of Approach & Techniques During Project 9

V. List of Submittals 10

VI. Additional Information 11

A. Project Personnel and Partners 11

B. System Approach & Techniques 12

C. Summary of Project Budget 13

D. Contact Information 14

VII. CEQA Documentation 14

VIII. Quality Assurance Project Plan 14

IX. Project Assessment & Evaluation Plan 14

A. Load Reduction Analysis 14

B. Non-bacterial Indicators Analysis 16

C. Bacterial Indicators Analysis 19

D. Gross Solids 19

X. Public Education & Outreach 19

A. Reaching Out to the Public 19

B. Website Accessibility 20

C. Tours 20

D. Signage & Outreach Materials 20

E. Conferences 20

XI. Conclusions, Challenges & Lessons Learned 21

A. Conclusions 21

B. Challenges 21

C. Lessons Learned 22

XII. Photo Diary 22

XIII. Appendices 23

A. Appendix A: Project Overview 23

i. Watershed 24

ii. Project Site Location 25

iii. Cross Section of Project-Plantings 26

B. Appendix B: Project Budget Summary 28

C. Appendix C: Water Quality Results 30

i. Water Sampling Summary Table 31

ii. Water Quality Reports (not included)

iii. Summary of Parameter Concentrations 32

5


March 31, 2010

D. Appendix D: Educational Materials 38

i. Construction Sign 39

ii. Final Sign and Mounted in Place 41

iii. Website Printout 43

iv. Outreach Material 44

E. Appendix E: Sampling Locations 46

F. Appendix F: Photo Diary (separate file) 51

6


March 31, 2010

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Santa Monica installed a “green” street as a demonstration of how

comprehensive structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) can harvest urban runoff, both dry

and wet weather, for infiltration, keeping this single largest source of water pollution out of the

Santa Monica Bay. The green street demonstration project was a retrofit of a highly urbanized

residential-commercial city block. Four different types of BMPs were installed: sub-surface

plastic concave infiltration chambers under the parking lane; wider, depressed parkways with

climate-appropriate flora and low-volume solar-powered irrigation; gutter oriented catch basin

filters; and pervious concrete parking lanes. The project harvests any dry weather runoff and up

to 80% of wet weather runoff. By removing runoff for infiltration and bio-filtration, all

pollutants found in this harvested runoff is kept out of the Santa Monica Bay, improving water

quality and protecting beneficial uses of the Bay.

Water quality analyses showed significant removal of heavy metals as the runoff passes

through the soil column. Little if any chlorinated organic chemicals were found in the influent

so there was really nothing to treat. Nutrients had mixed results, discussed below. Bacteria were

reduced in most cases. Total dissolved solids and suspended solids increase because the influent

is relatively clean, little if any suspended materials; however, as the runoff filters through the soil

it picks up fine materials to increase TDS and TSS. The key point is that the project eliminated

most runoff from the MS4 system, eliminating all pollutants to the Bay.

The cost of the project was at the high end of normal street project, which in this case

was only one block. The City implemented four BMPs to show how they work rather than

selecting one to do all the runoff mitigation. By adding pervious concrete and resurface the

entire the street, additional costs were encumbered. For such runoff projects to become more

common, the use of depressed and widened parkways with sub-surface infiltration under the

parkways will be a more cost-effective solution.

IV. INTRODUCTORY SECTION

Statement of Project Purpose & Objectives

The Project goal is to reduce pollutants found in urban runoff carried to the Santa Monica

Bay through a small portion of the Ashland Street Watershed through a green street retrofitted

urbanized residential block demonstration project. The purpose of this project is to install a

number of best management practices (BMPs), e.g. treatment devices or structures, “green

street,” replacing impermeable asphalt surfaces with pervious concrete, sub-surface infiltration

chambers, depressed parkways and catch basin filters, to remove pollutants commonly found in

urban runoff, and demonstrate how this BMP project when expanded to other streets can remove

significant amounts of runoff and its pollutants, lead to a reduction in the number of pathogen

exceedances and corresponding beach postings at storm drain outlet locations, and restore and

protect the water quality and environment of local coastal waters, estuaries and near shore waters

of the Santa Monica Bay. Through these objectives, beneficial uses of the Bay will be protected

and preserved; water quality objectives will be achieved by reducing the pollutants of concern

most common in urban runoff: trash, debris, sediments, oil and grease, nutrients, heavy metals

and organics. In addition, this project will help the City comply with various NPDES, TMDL,

7


March 31, 2010

NPS and watershed restoration programs and to better safeguard aquatic habitats and beaches for

wildlife and people. Moreover, this project will help meet the goal of protecting and restoring

beneficial uses of these waters as outlined in the Los Angeles Regional Board‟s Basin Plan for

the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

The project purpose and goals were defined through the following processes:

Identification of factors that affect the concentrations and loads of problem

constituents in urban runoff; and

Review of existing data on costs, effectiveness, and benefits of stormwater BMPs.

The project is designed to improve urban runoff quality by converting a typical urbanized

street, e.g. impermeable, unsightly, into a more sustainable street with low-impact development

strategies to promote runoff capture and infiltration. The overall treatment system, which

involves four structural BMPs, will improve water quality by removing most trash, debris and

sediments, and up to 100% of other soluble TMDL pollutants of concern, such as heavy metals,

nutrients, pathogens and synthetic organics found in dry and wet weather runoff (up to 0.75 inch

storm event or about 80% of total annual runoff). By removing pollutants of concern, the Santa

Monica Bay will be enhanced for the many beneficial uses of these waters, used by both aquatic

species and people.

To assess if the overall objectives of the project are met, a set of numeric water quality

objectives or criteria goals are established to determine whether successful treatment has been

achieved, within this small section of the Ashland Avenue Basin:

Removal of 100% of floatables and solids through the entrapment in the catch

basin filters and depressed parkways (for all dry weather and up to 80% of annual

wet weather flows);

Removal of 70% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), oil and grease, and other

soluble pollutants attached to solids through the catch basin filters and depressed

parkways (removal efficiency will vary based upon influent concentrations); and

Treatment through pervious concrete and sub-surface infiltration chambers

instead of out to the Bay; all dry weather flows and initial wet weather flows (first

flush) from up to a ¾” storm event, which is approximately 80% of wet weather

events.

Scope of the Project

This project removed the existing impermeable asphalt in the parking lanes on both sides

of the street and installed pervious concrete along one block of a City street to receive and

infiltration road runoff. The existing 4‟ parkways were doubled in width and depressed to receive

gutter runoff. Sub-surface infiltration chambers were placed under the parking lanes to receive

gutter runoff after passing through catch basin filters, or from overflow pipes in the depressed

parkways. This project treats all dry weather flowing from a highly urbanized area in the south-

western part of the City. The project also treats up to 80% of wet weather flows from the same

area.

Project Area

8


March 31, 2010

The green street is located along the 100 block of Bicknell Avenue, one block from the

beach between Ocean Avenue and Neilson Way.

Runoff from the project location, which is within the Ashland Avenue Watershed, flows

into the Santa Monica Bay via the Ashland Avenue storm drain, a marine coastal habitat, sand

beach bottom with a gradual slope along the Bay floor.

Beneficial uses include bathing and swimming. Surfing and fishing occur north and

south of this area. Other beneficial uses include breeding and feeding by aquatic and terrestrial

animals.

The sub-watershed that drains to the project area is 1.5 acres and is 100% built-out. Land

uses include multi-family residential, commercial and transportation.

Appendix A contains a map of the watershed and project location area.

History of Project

The planning for the project began in 2004 when staff of the City‟s Office of

Sustainability and the Environment Watershed Section expressed interest in the developing the

City‟s first green street, using state funding that was coming available in 2005. The concept of a

demonstration green street moved forward.

The City applied for a Proposition 50 grant beginning in 2005 through the Santa Monica

Bay Restoration Commission, which administers the Santa Monica-related portion of the

Proposition 50 process for the State Water Resources Control Board. The City applied for and

received the grant from the Commission the end of 2005. City Council approved a staff report in

January 2006 to proceed with a Proposition grant. The grant agreement was executed in June

2006 for $450,000, whereupon the City worked with the Commission to implement the project.

In September 2005, the CEQA process was completed with the project obtaining a

Categorical Exemption.

A wide city street with a narrow parkway was selected because a wide existing street

provided space to convert to the parkway and install a permeable surface. A street with multi-

families and near a commercial area was also selected since these characteristics present some of

the most difficult scenarios where such a demonstration can prove workable. If such a project

works in this type of environment, it should work in most typical urbanized streets. A

community design process led by City staff began in November 2007 and continued into 2008.

Construction commenced in March 2009.

9


March 31, 2010

Project Construction Schedule

The project schedule was delayed due to the extended period of time required to meet

with the public for a discussion on the design. In addition, initial turnout for a community

workshop was inadequate to get an objective feel for what the residents of the project area

wanted. A second community workshop resulted in a better representation of the neighborhood.

In addition, numerous residents who could not attend submitted their thoughts via written or

verbal. The delays required the City to seek agreement extensions, which in themselves resulted

in further delays. As a result the project completion was about two years delayed. However,

once the project was awarded to the contractor, it moved ahead rapidly and was completed in

three months.

Description of Approach & Techniques During Project

In FY04-05, the Santa Monica City Office of Sustainability & the Environment explored

the feasibility of retrofitting an existing urbanized road in a built-out area into a „green street‟ by

removing impermeable asphalt and replacing with a pervious concrete, and by collecting and

directing runoff into sub-surface infiltration and surface depressed parkways to comply with

urban runoff mitigation regulations. During the next three years, sites were evaluated and

community input gathered. That effort culminated in the award of a grant from the State Water

Resources Control Board which made the project possible. In March 2009, construction began.

An opening celebration event has held on July 8, 2009.

The Objective: The Bicknell Avenue Green Street Project demonstrates the feasibility of

reducing dry weather and stormwater runoff and pollution by converting one block of highly

urbanized road, paved with little vegetated, into a more aesthetically pleasing, less paved and

more dynamic smart road. This green street collects, filters, infiltrates, and cleanses all dry

weather runoff and most storm water from 1.5 acres (about 30,000 gallons per storm event over

0.10”) in an average rainfall year. The system consists of widened, depressed parkways to

10


March 31, 2010

collect runoff for infiltration and plant uptake; sub-surface infiltration chambers; and pervious

concrete in replacement of impermeable asphalt. The low-volume irrigation system for the

parkway is regulated by an advanced controller using climate data and is powered by a solar

panel.

An Important Demonstration Project: The Bicknell Avenue Green Street Project can

demonstrate to other municipalities that the transportation grid can play a role in abating runoff

and pollution while adding to sorely needed green space. “Greening” areas of asphalt also

reduces surface temperatures and heat gain, which is especially critical in urban communities.

Appendix A contains graphics of the project site and a schematic diagram of the design.

II. LIST OF SUBMITTALS

Item DESCRIPTION GRANT FUNDING

DUE DATE

EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK

1.0 PROJECT ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PLAN, MONITORING PLANS, QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

$ 0 - -

1.1 GPS Coordinates - - 8/06

1.2 PAEP - - 6/07

1.3 Monitoring Plan (MP) - - 6/07

1.4 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 6/07

2.0 WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY GRANTEE $ 0 - -

2.1 Pre-Construction Monitoring & Notification - -

2.1.1 Property Owner Notification - - 9/07

2.2 Design Plans & Specifications

2.2.1 Pre- and During-Construction Photo Documentation 3/09

2.2.2 Design Plans & Specifications - - 10/07

2.2.4 Final Design Plans & Specifications -- 11/08

2.3 Bicknell Avenue Construction $450,000

2.3.1 Notice to Proceed 2/15/09

2.3.3 Post-Construction Photo Documentation - - 6/09

2.3.4 As-built Drawings 6/09

2.4 Project Effectiveness Monitoring - -

2.4.1 Operations & Maintenance Plan 2/09

2.4.3 Cleanouts Photo Documentation - - 2/10

2.4.4 Summary of Analytical Results 3/10

2.5 Water Quality Monitoring - -

2.5.2 List of Selected Monitoring Sites 9/07

2.5.6 Water Quality Monitoring Report - - 3/10

11


March 31, 2010

Item DESCRIPTION GRANT FUNDING

DUE DATE

2.6 Educational Outreach & Technology Transfer - -

2.6.1 Outreach Material - - 6/09

2.6.2 Signage Installation Photo Documentation $ 0 6/09

2.6.3 List of Tours - - 2/10

2.6.4 Printout of Updated Website $ 0 2/10

2.7 Draft and Final Project Reports - -

2.7.1 Draft Project Report 2/15/10

2.7.2 Final Report 3/1/10

EXHIBIT B – BUDGET AND REPORTING PROVISIONS

1.1 Invoicing Quarterly

7.0 REPORTS

7.1 Progress Reports by the twentieth (20th) of the month following the

end of the calendar quarter (March, June, September, and December)

- - Quarterly

7.2 Expenditure/Invoice Projections Quarterly

7.3 Grant Summary Form Day 90

7.4 Natural Resource Projects Inventory (NRPI) project survey form - - Before final invoice

EXHIBIT C – SWRCB GENERAL CONDITIONS

7 Copy of final EQA/NEPA documentation

Work cannot begin prior to receipt of environmental clearance from the SWRCB

- - 5/15/07

30 Signed cover sheets for all permits - - As needed

Total Grant Funds: $ 450,000 - -

III. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Project Personnel and Partners

City of Santa Monica Neal Shapiro, Project Coordinator, Office of Sustainability & the

Environment

Mark Cuneo, Jessica Arden, Project Managers/Design &

Construction, Civil Engineering & Architecture

Rick Valte, Water Quality Monitoring, Engineering Division

Gary Welling, Danny Gomez, Operation & Maintenance: Water

Resources Division

Randy Little, Community Maintenance

Kim Braun, Solid Waste Management Division

12


March 31, 2010

Grant Funding Agencies State Water Resources Control Board

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

Proposition 50, Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, Santa

Monica Bay Restoration Commission Grant Program

Construction Manager City of Santa Monica

Contractor Scully-Miller

Design Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. – Overall Design

Geosyntec – Engineering

American Environmental Testing Lab – Water Quality

Product Vendor Sub-surface Chambers, Contech ChamberMaxx

Catch Basin Filters, Contech Triton

System Approach & Techniques (Operation)

The following discussion is intended to provide a general overview of BMP components

for the green street runoff reduction and treatment project.

ChamberMaxx™ Sub-surface-Depressed Parkway Surface Runoff Storage System

Contech‟s ChamberMaxx™ (http://www.contech-

cpi.com/stormwater/products/plastic_detention/chambermaxx/817) plastic storage chambers

were placed under the parking lanes on both sides of the street along the length of the block.

These chambers receive filtered runoff from the gutters, where the runoff infiltrates into the

substrate. When the chambers reach capacity, runoff continues to flow along the gutter as in any

traditional gutter to the closest storm drain. However, in this Project, runoff is also diverted into

depressed parkways adjacent to the gutter. Additional runoff is stored here for infiltration. Each

segregated parkway has a standing overflow pipe. When the parkways reach capacity, excess

runoff overflows into the vertical pipe, which diverts runoff to the chambers. If both are full,

runoff continues along the gutter in a traditional manner.

See Appendix A for design and project layout.

Landscape Design

The plant palette was based on climate-appropriate species for a semi-arid,

Mediterranean climate. See Appendix A for a listing of plant species and location of parkways.

A high efficiency, low-volume (drip) irrigation system was installed to maximize

water efficiency and eliminate overspray and runoff. The irrigation system is regulated by a

controller powered by the sun.

Monitoring Ports & AB411 Location (see Appendix E)

http://www.contech-cpi.com/stormwater/products/plastic_detention/chambermaxx/817

http://www.contech-cpi.com/stormwater/products/plastic_detention/chambermaxx/817

13


March 31, 2010

Influent samples are taken from the first catch basin on the north side of Bicknell

Avenue just east of Neilson Way. The City sampling consultant sets sample bottles in the catch

basin to capture runoff before it gets into the outlet pipe, which drains into the sub-surface

chambers.

Effluent samples are taken from two monitoring wells at two different depths, 8”

(root zone) and 26” (18” below root zone). The two wells are located in the second parkway east

from Neilson Way on the north side of the street.

The purpose of two sampling depths is to obtain samples that have undergone

different times of treatment. Effluent taken from the deeper well will have had more time for

treatment through a taller column of soil, and presumably have a higher quality, e.g. lower

concentrations of pollutants.

The ocean beach monitoring location is at Ashland, 3-5 (Bacterial TMDL names)

or S7 (old name).

Summary of Project Budget

See below and Appendix B (enlarged).

In terms of meeting a set budget, the project was in line with the estimate from the

contractor that was awarded the construction project. The design phase of the budget was over

budget due to the much iteration for the design, as a result of numerous public input and

reporting to the City Council. However, no set budget was set for the design. In addition, these

were matching costs encumbered by the City through its Stormwater and Clean Beaches funds

and had no negative impact on the grant nor installation of the project.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the project cost is most likely higher than for a normal

retrofit road project. This project installed four structural BMPs; it was overbuilt, has more

redundancy, in terms of BMPs. However these BMPs were used to demonstrate how they can be

integrated into a green street and which BMPs will work best. This strategy will help the City

and other agencies decide which BMPs they will want to pursue in future green street projects.

Contact Information

14


March 31, 2010

For readers with questions about the project or the report:

Neal Shapiro

200 Santa Monica Pier

Suite E

Santa Monica, CA 90401

310.458.8223

[email protected]

IV. CEQA DOCUMENTATION

Documentation was submitted as per the Table of Submittals. See above.

V. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

Documentation was submitted. See Table of Submittals.

VI. PAEP: WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS & EFFECTIVENESS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Load Reduction Analysis

No pre-construction pollutant load data exists. Before the project, no system existed to

capture and record the amounts of trash, debris, sediments and other gross pollutants leaving this

storm drain outlet. When data becomes available, it will be posted on the City‟s website,

http://www.smgov.net/epd/residents/Urban_Runoff/urban. All water quality analysis, including

raw data and chain of custody are available from the city upon request in hard or electronic

format.

Because runoff is going to infiltration zones under the parking lanes and parkways, it is

kept out of the Bay, and water quality benefits still accrue. All the pollutants contained in the

harvested runoff for infiltration is kept out of the bay.

For purposes of analysis, pre-construction water quality data is considered to be the same

as influent water quality data. Samples were not obtained before construction due to minimal

flows and the difficulty of obtaining grab samples. Moreover, as there is no change in any flows

entering the treatment system before and after the project installation, the data can be considered

the same. No changes occurred upstream to neither alter dry and wet weather runoff flows nor

water quality before and after the project installation.

Three sampling events occurred, and they were for wet weather. Because there is

generally no runoff during dry weather, no samples exist for dry weather. Three wet weather

events were sampled because by the time the sampling wells were installed and the consultant

hired, it was mid-January 2010. Samples were obtained in February.

Below is the table of PAEP effectiveness objectives:

Project Goal Desired Output Outcome Measurement Target

http://www.smgov.net/epd/residents/Urban_Runoff/urban_projects.htm

15


March 31, 2010

Outcome Indicator Indicator Tool &

Method Educate the public

about urban runoff

pollution

Increase the number

of the public who

know about this problem and

solutions

ACHIEVED

No. of the public

contacted:

Through two community planning

workshops, two

council meetings and an opening event, the

public learned about

the project and its goals.

% increase in urban

runoff knowledge Questionnaire –

Did not perform

the questionnaire

but sent out dozens

of notices to

residents and

businesses in the

project area for

their input and to

attend planning

meetings to learn

about the project

goals.

100% increase of

those who have no

knowledge of subject:

As a result of

community workshops with the

design team,

attended by about 20 residents; in addition

dozens more learned

about the project via mailings, online

postings, council

meetings and the opening ceremony.

Comply with

TMDLs for the Santa Monica Bay

Reduce amounts and

types of runoff pollutants reaching

the Bay

ACHIEVED

No. of BMPs

installed at the project site: 4

Percent reduction of

runoff to the Bay.

Percent reduction in

pollutants.

Estimate of runoff

volume entering BMPs.

Up to 29,000 gallons

per ¾” storm event.

Water quality

analyses of pollutants:

Results discussed in

section and tables in appendix, showing

mixed results.

Up to 80% reduction

in runoff volume to the Bay from the

project site.

Based on sizing of the storage reservoirs

for the depressed

parkways, sub-surface retention

chambers, and sub-

grade for pervious concrete,

ACHIEVED.

100% reduction of

pollutants found in

runoff within the project treatment

zone, such as trash,

bacterial indicators, heavy metals,

organic chemicals,

and oil and grease. ACHIEVED based

on removal of runoff

volume.

In addition to quantitative results below, they are also found in Appendix C in a larger,

easier-to-read format. These seven tables contain water quality results from the February 2010

water samples. The table below is a summary of all sampling dates. No issues in sampling and

monitoring protocol occurred.

16


March 31, 2010

Result of Non-bacterial Data

General Minerals

Though all runoff was captured for infiltration, the water sampling results show

that infiltration through the turf and top soil does not improve water quality for Conductivity,

Hardness, TDS and TSS. (TSS did show improvement for the deep well in one sample.) The

reason may be that as the rain water passes through the soil, it picks up soluble components to

make the initial water quality higher in minerals. As we know, rain water is pure and neutral.

And while it picks up solubles as it flows across roofs and roads, it picks up more traveling

through the soil column. The influent sample of rain water was cleaner. The only source of

these minerals is from the soil in terms of the difference between influent and effluent. pH was

reduced (made more acidic). (NOTE: % Change in red is a reduction of concentration,

decrease in pollution; in black is an increase or worsening of concentration, pollution.)

Metals

Samples contained few of the metals. Cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and

nickel were all non-detects for influent samples. Copper and zinc were both present. Generally,

mercury and lead are not normally found. One would expect nickel from vehicles. In all

samples, concentration reductions were achieved. In 3 of 4 cases, the reductions were the same

indicating that the difference in depth did not impact the performance, and the best removal

occurs in the top inches of soil. One sample for zinc showed higher removal for the deep well

sample.

17


March 31, 2010

Nitrogen & Phosphorus

Results are mixed for these components. Nitrate showed improvement for the

first sample, both depths; however, the second sample showed the opposite. Nitrite has no

improvements. Ammonia showed improvement from 63-100% for all samples. And, no

improvements were achieved for ortho-phosphate. This failure to achieve improvements for

nutrients may be because plants do take up both elements but also release compounds of these

elements.

Organic Chemicals

All but one constituent was non-detect for influent and effluent, indicating fairly

clean water for this group of compounds. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate did show up in one

influent but was non-detect in the effluent. (See results in Appendix C due to large size of the

table to fit in this space and lack of meaningful results.)

Miscellaneous Constituents

18


March 31, 2010

This group of measurements includes turbidity, chemical oxygen demand,

biological oxygen demand, and oil and grease. The latter was non-detect for influent and

effluent samples, despite runoff from the adjacent roadways. Turbidity showed increases for all

samples, while one might expect turbidity to decrease as the water is filtered for fine particles

through the soil. However, it may be that very fine materials are entering the water as it

percolates through the soil, increasing turbidity in the effluent samples. The increases were 200-

300 times. COD and BOD both showed significant improvements, 60-100%.

Result of Bacterial Data

Mixed results were observed. All three indicators showed both improvements and

increases in concentration. No pattern is indicated by the results. The influent concentrations,

though, are not high. One expects improvements as the runoff passes through the soil, but the

soil can and does contain its own bacteria that could be showing up in the effluent samples.

Bacteria can grow in moist, dark environments such as soil.

19


March 31, 2010

Gross Solids Removal

No data was collected on trash and debris washed into the catch basins and depressed

parkways. Trash was observed by City staff during initial rain event observations in the

locations mentioned. However, maintenance has not visited the area to collect and measure the

materials. But any such solids on the surface are captured and removed from the MS4 system.

VII. EDUCATION & OUTREACH

Reaching out to the Public

Refer to the timetable under the Project Construction Timetable sub-section above to read

when the City involved the community in the planning of the project. The City made two

opportunities available for public input in the design phase.

Website Accessibility

The City website to access information about this project is

http://www.smgov.net/epd/residents/Urban_Runoff/urban. The link to the project includes

valuable project information:

Project Signage, pre and post-construction

Draft Final Report

Water Quality Reports

Educational Materials

Project Budget

http://www.smgov.net/epd/residents/Urban_Runoff/urban_projects.htm

20


March 31, 2010

Tours

No tours have been requested by the public. Only had initial tour for opening event in

July 2009.

Signage and Outreach Materials

See Appendix D for samples and descriptions, which include project signs posted during

construction, post-construction signage, a printout of the website for project, and an educational

brochure/hand-out for events.

Conferences

The City will make oral presentations on this project at the international Low Impact

Development Conference in San Francisco, CA, April 2010 and at the national Watershed

Conference in Madison, WI, August 2010.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS, CHALLENGES & LESSONS LEARNED

Conclusions

The green street treatment system is effective in eliminating gross pollutants and soluble

pollutants as all runoff is captured in the various storage-infiltration BMPs. Water quality results

are mixed. The most dramatic improvements are for the metals category and COD-BOD.

Organic chemicals are not showing up. For nutrients, one expects mixed results when using

biofilters for treatment. Failure to achieve improvements for TSS and TDS is unexpected. All

soluble pollutants captured by the treatment system are removed from the MS4 system and kept

out of receiving waters – a 100% efficiency standard.

Meeting the Project Objectives

1. Removal of 100% of floatables and solids (for all dry weather and up to 80% of

wet weather flows).

Objective 1 has been met.

2. Removal of 70% of TSS, oil and grease, and other soluble pollutants attached to

solids through the primary stage vortex unit (efficiency removal will vary based

upon influent concentrations).

Objective 2 has been achieved because the removal efficiency is 100% for

pollutants through infiltration, though best upon the water quality results, for a

treat and release system, this objective would not be met using living floral

systems for treatment.

3. Treatment through the primary BMP device (instead of out to the Bay) of all dry

weather flows and initial wet weather flows (first flush) up to a designed one

21


March 31, 2010

cubic foot per second (cfs) flow rate, and treatment of approximately 80% of wet

weather events through the primary treatment BMP.

Objective 3 has been met.

Challenges

Right BMP Mix: When designing a green street, one needs to decide early on which

pollutants are to be addressed and select the BMPs that will best address those

pollutants. Landscaped BMPs may not be the best solution if nutrients are your issue,

but may be ideal for heavy metals.

Economics: Multiple BMPs may not be necessary to achieve one‟s objectives. Too

many BMPs can be overkill in meeting goals, yet significantly add to the budget.

One properly-sized BMP can accomplish what three or four BMPs do. While

demonstrating the use of multiple BMPs is a good demonstration for the public and

data collection, for a long-term green street program, each street may only need one

BMP.

Public Acceptance: For projects in residential areas, pleasing 100% is nearly

impossible. Keeping that in mind, opening up the design process for public input is

critical to get its overall support.

Lessons Learned

o For future projects, incorporate rainwater harvesting, e.g. cisterns, under the parkways or

parking lanes for an onsite supply of irrigation water and reduction of the use of potable

water.

o Lower the in-line catch basins in the gutter so water falls easily into them. The present

project sloped the gutter in a way that the water flow hugs the curb and can by-pass

falling into the catch basins.

o The curb cuts to direct gutter runoff into the parkways need to be lower to capture

flowing water.

o Curb cut pads leading from the gutter into the depressed parkway need to be lower and

angled downward, and the depressed parkways lowered, so that the water enters more

easily from the gutter and flows unobstructed into the entire depressed parkways. The

present project did not depress the parkways enough and the entry pads are not sloped

downward, resulting in ponding at the front end of the parkway and no flow to the back

end to take full advantage of the entire storage volume.

IX. PHOTO DIARY

See PowerPoint Attachment, Appendix F

Pre-Construction

Construction

Post-Construction

22


March 31, 2010

APPENDIX A

Project Overview

1. PROJECT WATERSHED (ASHLAND)

2. PROJECT LOCATION (AERIAL)

3. CROSS SECTION OF PROJECT

23


March 31, 2010

Ashland Watershed Area and City

24


March 31, 2010

25


March 31, 2010

26


March 31, 2010

27


March 31, 2010

APPENDIX B

Project Budget Summary

28


March 31, 2010

29


March 31, 2010

APPENDIX C

1. Water Sampling Summary, Table 1

2. Water Quality Reports

February 2010 (Hard copies excluded from Final Report due to length; available upon request. Data

summarized in tables below)

3. Summary of Parameter Concentrations

Influent v. Effluent

Tables 2-7

30


March 31, 2010

Table 1. Sampling Summary.

31


March 31, 2010

Table 2. Bacteria.

32


March 31, 2010

Table 3. General Minerals.

33


March 31, 2010

Table 4. Metals.

34


March 31, 2010

Table 5. Miscellaneous

35


March 31, 2010

Table 6. Nitrogen & Phosphorus

36


March 31, 2010

Table 7. Organic Compounds.

37


March 31, 2010

APPENDIX D

Educational Materials:

1. Construction Sign

2. Final Sign and Mounted at Site

3. Website Printout

4. Outreach Brochure

38


March 31, 2010

39


March 31, 2010

Construction Sign: Construction sign posted during construction, top;

close-up of sign, above, informing the public what project is being

installed and the purpose of the project to improve water quality

reaching the Santa Monica Bay. Located at the west and east ends of the

construction site.

40


March 31, 2010

41


March 31, 2010

Final Post-Construction Sign: informing the public the purpose of the project to

improve water quality reaching the Santa Monica Bay. Located at the west and east ends of

project site in a location that maximizes public viewing.

42


March 31, 2010

Printout of Updated Contractor‟s Website

43


March 31, 2010

44


March 31, 2010

Educational Brochure (pages 1/2): Project information brochure disseminated to the

public when asked, at City public events and at conferences related to runoff themes.

45


March 31, 2010

APPENDIX E

SAMPLING LOCATIONS (PHOTOS)

Influent Monitoring Port (Catch Basin)

Effluent Monitoring Ports (in Parkway)

46


March 31, 2010

Effluent Sampling Wells for 8” and 26” depths.

47


March 31, 2010

8” french drain to receive shallow water percolation to shallow monitoring well (left).

48


March 31, 2010

26” french drain to receive shallow water percolation to shallow monitoring well.

49


March 31, 2010

Checking monitoring wells during rain event. Uncapping well (top) and looking at water at

well bottom (bottom).

50


March 31, 2010

APPENDIX F Project Construction Photo Diary (separate document)

final construction report

Documents