Monitoring and Evaluation Report for

Stormwater Demonstration Project at

the Nevada County Rood Center
Prepared for American Rivers
by the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) and Kyle Leach
December 7th, 2011

Design and Construction by:

Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Storm Event Monitoring ........................................................................................................................... 3
First Flush Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 4
Sediment Load Reduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Stormwater Detention Time ..................................................................................................................... 6
Stormwater Volume Absorbed ................................................................................................................. 6
Estimates of Pollutant Reduction ............................................................................................................. 6
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ................................................................................................................ 7
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) .................................................................................................................. 7
Turbidity ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Other Constituents................................................................................................................................ 8
Simulated Storm Events ................................................................................................................................ 8
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction
This report documents the results of field activities conducted during the fall and winter of 2010-2011
for the Installation of Stormwater Management in Yuba Watershed project located at the Nevada
County Administrative Center (Rood Center) in Nevada City, California.
The project involved design and construction of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) features
at the Rood Center site during the summer of 2010. The project design team consisted ofIntegrated
Environmental Restoration Services completed the design and construction, with engineering by PR
Design and Engineering. This report evaluates the performance of two features, a raingarden and
bioswale, through the first winter following construction.
The rain garden was installed to the south of the Nevada County Government Center building, in a
landscaped area surrounded by asphalt parking and bounded by curbs (Figure 1). Curb cuts were
created to direct stormwater runoff from parking lot areas into the rain garden. The impervious
catchment area (paved parking lot) of the rain garden is approximately 21,426 square feet (sf) and the
1

surface area of the feature is 11,485 sf. Stormwater flowed through a series of ponds and any overflow
discharged through a storm drain drop inlet (DI) into a culvert, which discharged at the north side of
Highway 49, south of the site. This culvert discharge also includes runoff from other areas of the site as
well as off-site catchment areas to the north and northeast. The culvert empties into Oregon Ravine,
which flows through downtown Nevada City to Deer Creek, a tributary of the Yuba River.
The bioswale was constructed in the west-central portion of the site in an elongated landscaped area
bounded by curbs and surrounded by parking lots. The bio swale is located between the Rood
Government Center building and the Wayne Brown Correctional facility. Curb cuts were created to
direct stormwater runoff from parking lot areas up slope into the bioswale. The impervious catchment
area for the bioswale is approximately 22,500 sf and the bioswale surface area is 3,890 sf. Stormwater
flows through a small DI, into a subsurface infiltration pipe which extends beneath the eastern portion
of the bioswale. When this pipe is filled, stormwater backs up to the DI and then flows to a second DI,
which directs water westward through a pipe which discharges to a small swale and pond in the western
end of the feature. Any bioswale overflow discharges to a DI which directs stormwater into a culvert
that apparently discharges near the southwest corner of the site and flows down a small, unnamed
tributary to Deer Creek.
A second rain garden was installed in a median of the Madelyn Helling Library in the eastern portion of
the site. Because this feature was constructed with cost savings incurred during the construction of the
other two features and was not planned prior to developing a monitoring plan, the Library Rain Garden
received only cursory observations of feature performance.
The purpose of stormwater monitoring for the project was to evaluate, and quantify when feasible, the
benefits of two BMP features. Potential benefits of the features include: 1) reduction in overall runoff
by increased stormwater runoff retention time and infiltration volumes and 2) reduction in the sediment
and pollutant loads in the parking lot runoff.The 2010/2011 rainy season in the Sierra Nevada foothills
region produced greater than average precipitation totals with a relatively wet late fall/early winter, a
dry January and a wet late winter/early spring. The total rainfall recorded on the gauges used for the
project during the project monitoring period of October 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 was 60.3
inches, 30% above the average rainfall for the period. Approximately 33 storms (75 days with
measurable precipitation) occurred during the monitoring period, 8 of which produced snow or mixed
rain and snow (13 days with measurable snowfall).

Methods
Monitoring activities were performed in general accordance with SYRCLs March 5, 2010 Monitoring
Plan for Stormwater Demonstration Project at the Nevada County Rood Center and a July 6, 2010 Quality
Assurance Project Plan prepared for the project. Monitoring activities performed during the 2010- 2011
rain season included:

Storm event monitoring of seven storms, between October 2010 and March 2011. Storm event
monitoring included: timing of first influent and effluent flows, rainfall volumes, grab samples
and subsequent analysis for selected constituents identified in the first flush sampling.
First flush sampling of influent and effluent (when the feature overtopped) storm water and
analysis for water quality constituents typically identified in stormwater runoff from paved
parking lots.
Two simulated storm events performed to calibrate data from storm event monitoring and
estimate infiltration rates during unsaturated and saturated soil conditions.

Storm Event Monitoring

Seven storm events were selected to provide a representative cross section of storms and soil moisture
conditions present throughout the rainy season. We did not monitor small events that appeared
unlikely to overtop the features. Nor did we monitor snow events or mixed rain/snow events because
snow removal operations made it impossible to estimate inflow volumes.
During the 2010/2011 storm season, the first measurable rainfall and seven subsequent storm events
were monitored on the following dates:

First Flush- October 5, 2010

Storm Event 1- October 23, 2010
Storm Event 2- November 7, 2010
Storm Event 3- December 5, 2010
Storm Event 4- December 17, 2010
Storm Event 5- January 29-30, 2011
Storm Event 6- February 14-15, 2011
Storm Event 7- March 18, 2011

During storm events, measurements included:

1. Time of first influent and time of first effluent;
2. Precipitation amounts recorded at a nearby Weather Underground rainguages
(www.wunderground.com) located at Lake Vera (approximately 2 miles east of the site, with a
similar topographic aspect and elevation). One exception was the use of National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rainfall records for Nevada City for the October 5 first flush
event, since only minimal rain (0.05) was recorded on the Lake Vera gauge for that day, which
was not consistent with our field observations, which included a relatively short period of hard
rain and heavy runoff which was more consistent with the 0.23 recorded on the NOAA Nevada
City gauge;
3. Influent grab samples collected within the first hour of initial inflow. Effluent grab samples were
collected as soon as possible after first effluent was observed from the features (generally
within two hours of first effluent). Grab samples were obtained using a dedicated scoop dipped
into the center of the flow path. Temperature, pH and conductivity were measured in the field,
then samples were transferred into laboratory-supplied containers and transported to the
3

laboratory. Influent and effluent samples were analyzed at the SYRCL office and/or Cranmer
Analytical Laboratories for turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS).
First Flush samples were analyzed at Cranmer Laboratory for additional analytes as described
below. Bacteria analysis for total coliform and E. coli was performed on samples from Storm
Event 4 since first flush samples were out of hold time for bacteria analysis.
Details of sampling and field testing procedures are included in the monitoring plan
(http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/reports-and-publications/monitoring-plan.pdf) and QAPP
(http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/reports-and-publications/stormwater-monitoring-qapp.pdf)
prepared for the project.
The volume of stormwater captured by the BMP features before overtopping was calculated for each
stormwater monitoring event using the total rain fall during the time period between first influent and
first effluent multiplied by the design catchment areas for the feature. A runoff coefficient of 0.9 was
used for paved surfaces and a coefficient of 1.0 was used for the BMP feature surface area itself.
Flow meters were not used in the project, therefore it was not possible to directly measure stormwater
volumes absorbed by the features. The average volume captured before overtopping was used as an
estimate for the volume infiltrated (evapotranspiration was assumed negligible). The stormwater
captured before overtopping is a reasonable estimate of stormwater absorbed, when infiltration rates
are low, and captured volumes are averaged across storms. Infiltration rates must be low, because an
additional, unquantified, volume of stormwater infiltrates between the time when the feature overtops
and the end of the storm. The April 14th simulated event confirmed low rates of infiltration during the
rainy season. In some cases, when storms followed in close succession, standing water may be left in
the feature, unabsorbed at the beginning of the next storm (e.g., event 7). However, when averaged
across storms, captured volumes can be used to estimate absorbed volumes because the volume of
unabsorbed standing water from one event reduces the volume captured before overtopping during the
next event.

First Flush Monitoring

First flush monitoring was performed during two storm events on October 5, 2010 (influent) and
October 23, 2010 (effluent). The October 5 storm selected for first flush monitoring and from which
influent samples were collected, did not have enough precipitation to overtop either feature. Therefore
first flush effluent samples were collected from the first effluent discharged during the larger second
storm of the season on October 23. The October 23 event was also considered the first storm
monitoring event.
First flush influent and effluent surface water grab samples were analyzed for standard water quality
parameters: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), turbidity, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals (chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc), nutrients (nitrogen
as nitrate and phosphate as phosphorus) and total iil and grease. Laboratory methodology, reporting
limits and quality assurance procedures are included in the attached laboratory reports.

Sediment Load Reduction

Sediment load reduction for the two BMP features was calculated based on comparison of influent and
effluent total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations and total suspended solids (TSS). Turbidity
reductions were similarly calculated.
Highly accurate mass estimates would require multiple influent and effluent samples distributed
through the storm duration and flow-weighted sampling using an autosampler. However, the project
work plan and budget only allowed for analysis of one influent and one effluent grab sample from each
storm event and one set of pollutant water-quality constituent analyses for the first flush event. The
following assumptions were made in calculating sediment load mass reductions:

We did not include the mass of sediment and pollutants removed by each feature, after the
feature overtopped (during the flow-through period), due to lack of data. Vegetated areas (e.g.,
filter strips) have been shown to reduce sediment and pollution concentrations from flowthrough stormwater 1 , thus this assumption tends to underestimate the mass of pollutants
removed.
Concentrations from samples collected within one hour of the start of stormwater flow into the
BMP feature were assumed to represent average concentrations. This assumption may
overestimates average pollutant and sediment concentrations if loads decrease throughout the
storm, as would be the case following a first flush.

The mass of sediment captured by the BMP features was calculated in two parts to estimate 1) mass
reduced during the first flush event and 2) mass reduced during all storms for the remainder of the
monitoring period. First flush mass reductions were estimated based on the assumption that first flush
influent concentrations were representative of all first flush stormwater and the observation that 100%
of the stormwater was absorbed by the BMP feature (no effluent). Sediment mass reductions during
the remainder of the monitoring period were calculated as the difference between the influent and
effluent sample concentrations averaged across all storms in the monitoring period multiplied by the
volume of storm water captured by each feature before overtopping (calculated as the % captured
before overtopping multiplied by the total stormwater volume during the monitoring period).
Experiences with this monitoring project lead also to suggestions for any additional monitoring of this
type. Improved BMP feature aspects such as flumes or weirs installed at feature inflow and outflow
locations would allow flow measurement and improve sample reliability.
Additional sampling during future stormwater monitoring projects would allow better estimates of
sediment and pollutant load mass reductions. Ideally this would include the use of flow weighted
composite samplers. A less costly alternative would be to collect at least two influent and two effluent
samples at different times during each storm event. Flow weighted composite grab sampling would also
improve data quality.
1

EPA - Stormwater Menu of BMPs.

Results
Stormwater monitoring data collected during the 2010/2011 rainy season was evaluated to estimate
stormwater detention time, stormwater volumes absorbed, sediment reduction and pollutant load
reduction for the two BMP features at the Rood Center site. Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize monitoring
and laboratory data from the project. Two unusual storms were included in this analysis. Storm event
7 (on March 18, 2011), occurred during a particularly wet period, after approximately 4 inches of rain
had fallen in the five previous days. Runoff from those storms had not been absorbed and standing
water was present in both BMP features at the start of storm event 7. At the other extreme, storm
event 6 (on February 14, 2011) included an extended period of light rainfall after a prolonged dry period.
This allowed greater than normal infiltration during event

Stormwater Detention Time

The rain garden captured all runoff from the catchment area for a period at the beginning of each storm,
which ranged from one hour, five minutes (1:05) to eleven hours (11:00), with a seven-event average of
4:40 (Table 1). The bioswale captured all runoff from the catchment area for a period ranging from 1:55
to 27:30 with a seven-event average of 8:55.

Stormwater Volume Absorbed

The calculated volume of rainfall absorbed by the rain garden before first effluent for each monitored
storm ranged from 192 cubic feet (cf) to 1,398 cf, with a seven-storm-event average of 850 cf infiltrated
(Table 1a). Total storm runoff from the catchment areas during each of the seven events ranged from
1,371 cf to 14,481 cf (average of 6,655 cf), thus the rain garden absorbed an average of 12.8% of the
total storm runoff from each event. Based on the total precipitation recorded by the rain gauges during
the monitoring period (60.3), and assuming the above rate of capture, the rain garden absorbed a total
of over 21,148 cf of stormwater runoff during the 2010/2011 project monitoring period. An additional
but unquantified volume of stormwater was also infiltrated by the raingarden between the time effluent
started and influent stopped.
The calculated volume of rainfall absorbed by the bioswale before first effluent ranged from 302 cubic
feet (cf) to 1,971 cf for a seven event average of 1,187 cf (Table 1b). Comparison of this value with the
total storm runoff from each of the seven events which ranged from 1,006 cf to 10,622 cf (average 4,889
cf), indicates the bioswale absorbed an average of at least 24.3% of the total storm runoff from each
event. Based on the same assumptions described for the raingarden, the bioswale absorbed a total of
over 29,449 cf of stormwater runoff during the 2010/2011 project monitoring period.

Estimates of Pollutant Reduction

In order to estimate the mass of solids and pollutants attenuated by the BMP features, we compared
influent and effluent sample concentrations. Solids were analyzed as TSS and TDS. Turbidity was also
measured (Table 2). Chemical pollutant concentrations were measured for the first flush only (Table 3).
Bacteria were analyzed for storm event 4 (Table 4).
Using these assumptions, changes in sediment load were estimated for the following constituents:

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Based on the rain garden first flush TSS concentration of 263 mg/L and 100% absorption of the first flush
volume of 631 cf, approximately 6.2kilograms (kg) of sediment was removed during the first flush event
(Table 2).
The mean influent TSS concentration at the raingarden was 42mg/L and the mean effluent
concentration was 14 mg/L. This resulted in an effective decreased concentration of 28 mg/L. Assuming
12.8% of the total runoff volume was treated by the rain garden (12.8% of 20,517 cf), TSS contributed to
an estimated decreased mass of 16.3 kilograms (kg) of sediment to the rain garden during the remainder
of the monitoring period. Adding first flush and remaining season results, an estimated 22.4 kg of
suspended sediment (as TSS) was removed by the rain garden during the project monitoring period.
Based on the bioswale first flush TSS concentration of 6,280 mg/L and 100% absorption of the first flush
volume of 463 cf, approximately 82.3 kilograms (kg) of sediment was absorbed during the first flush
event. The mean influent TSS concentration at the bioswale was 79mg/L and the mean effluent
concentration was 21 mg/L. This resulted in an effective decreased concentration of 58 mg/L. Assuming
24.3% of the seasons total runoff volume was treated by the bioswale (24.3% of 28,986 cf), TSS
contributed to an estimated decreased mass of 47.6 kg of sediment to the bioswale during the
remainder of the monitoring period. Adding first flush and remaining season results, an estimated 129.9
kg of suspended sediment (as TSS) was removed by the bioswale during the project monitoring period.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Based on the Rain Garden first flush TDS concentration of 202 mg/L and 100% absorption of the first
flush volume of 463 cf, approximately 3.6 kilograms (kg) of dissolved solids were absorbed during the
first flush event. Rain Garden TDS event mean influent vs. event mean effluent concentrations
increased from 33.0 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) to 106.3 mg/L for an effective increased concentration
of 73.3 mg/L. Assuming 12.8% of the remaining monitoring periods total runoff volume is treated by
the rain garden (12.8% of 20,517 cf), an estimated increased mass of 42.6 kilograms (kg) of dissolved
sediment during this period. The combined effects of the first flush and subsequent monitoring periods
resulted in a 39.0 kg increase in TDS in rain garden runoff during the monitoring period.
Based on the bioswale first flush TDS concentration of 438 mg/L and 100% absorption of the first flush
volume of 463 cf, approximately 5.74 kilograms (kg) of dissolved sediment was absorbed during the first
flush event. Bioswale TDS event mean influent vs. event mean effluent concentrations increased from
14.4 mg/L to 26.5 mg/L for an effective increased concentration of 12.1 mg/L. Assuming 24.3% of the
seasons total runoff volume is affected by the bioswale (24.3% of 28,986 cf), TDS contributed to an
estimated increased mass of 10.0 kilograms (kg) from the remaining monitoring periods runoff for a
total increased dissolved sediment load from bioswale runoff of 4.3 kg.
Turbidity
The raingarden first flush turbidity of 93 Nephalometric turbidity units (NTU) was decreased by 100% as
a result of complete absorption of runoff. Rain Garden turbidity event mean influent vs. event mean
effluent concentrations for the remainder of the season decreased from 23.7 NTU to 18.5 NTU a
decrease of 22.0%.
7

The Bioswale first flush turbidity of 6000 NTU was also completely captured. The event mean influent
vs. event mean effluent concentrations for the remainder of the period decreased from 55.4 NTU to
22.7 NTU a decrease of 59.2%.
Turbidity measurements are not mass concentrations, therefore mass reductions cannot be calculated
for turbidity.
Other Constituents
Pollutant load reductions for other constituents calculated for the first flush event only (Table 3).
Percent reduction calculations were based on the difference between first influent (October 5, 2010)
and first effluent (October 23, 2010) sample results. First flush pollutant mass reductions were
estimated based on the observation that first flush influent concentrations were representative of all
first flush stormwater and that 100% of the stormwater was absorbed by the BMP feature (no effluent).
Mercury and Total Oil and Grease were not detected in the first flush influent samples so these were not
measured in the corresponding effluent samples.
Bacteria analytical results for total coliform and E. coli were obtained from from Storm Event 4 only.
Results indicated high concentrations of total coliform in both influent and effluent samples from both
features. Total coliform concentrations in these samples exceeded a most probable number per 100
millileters (MPN per 100mL) 2419.2. E. coli concentrations were reduced from 15.6 to 9.8 MPN per
100mL, a 37% reduction. The bioswale reduced E. coli concentrations from 12.2 to 7.4 MPN per 100mL,
a 39% reduction.
pH was monitored for all influent and effluent samples in the field and at Cranmer Laboratory. pH
results are summarized in Tables 7A and 7B. Rain Garden pH influent ranged from 5.2 to 7.2 with a
mean of 6.6. Bioswale influent pH ranged from 4.8 to 7.4 with an event mean influent pH of 6.3 and
event mean effluent pH of 6.3.

Simulated Storm Events

Two simulated storm events were performed on the bioswale. The first event was on October
1, 2010 before the first storm when soil conditions were assumed to be relatively unsaturated.
To perform the first event we simulated the runoff from a 2 year recurrence interval, 6 hour
rain event. The runoff from rainfall rate of 0.35 inches per hour over the paved catchment area
was estimated to be 97 gallons per minute. Nevada County Consolidated Fire Department
provided assistance, running hydrant water through the truck to achieve the requested flow
rate onto pavement above the curb cut and into the bioswale. The feature overtopped after
64 minutes when approximately 830 cubic feet (cf) of stormwater had been collected. This was
compared with the estimated saturated capacity for the bioswale of 736 cf (5,505 gallons) to
estimate an infiltration rate of 94 cubic feet for the first hour

We then monitored infiltration by periodic measurements of water levels on a stage plate

installed in the terminal pond of the bioswale, and in two vertical pipes extending to the
horizontal infiltration pipe installed near the base of the eastern portion of the bioswale.
Infiltration rates generally decreased through the measurement period. The water level in the
vertical pipes dropped to the depth of the base of the infiltration pipe in approximately 5:50.
Although it was not possible to estimate the volume of water infiltrated with the available
information, this represents nearly complete drainage of the bioswale.
A second Simulated Event was performed on April 14, 2011, during a period of saturated soil
late in the rainy season. In the second simulated event, both the bioswale and rain garden
were filled to overflow and only infiltration data was collected. The water level in the vertical
pipes in the bioswale dropped to the depth of the base of the infiltration pipe in approximately
10:38, nearly twice as long as the infiltration period observed during the first dry season event.
Stage plate measurements were made in the bioswale during the first and second simulated
events and in the rain garden during the second event only. Water level on the bioswale stage
plate dropped approximately 2.04 in 118 minutes during the first event and 1.80 in 700
minutes during the second event. Water levels on the rain garden stage plate dropped very
slowly (less than 1 inch in 10 hours) during the second simulated event. These results do not
represent true infiltration rates, but rather represent localized conditions suggesting the
presence of relatively impermeable soil beneath the pond areas of the raingarden, particularly
during late season saturated conditions.

Conclusions
Rain Garden stormwater detention times varied considerably from storm to storm. Several factors likely
contributed to the variability including intensity and duration of precipitation, antecedent soil moisture
conditions, and the amount of residual standing water within the features at the start of the storm
event. On average, the Bioswale detained runoff nearly twice as long (average of 8:55 per storm event)
as the Rain Garden (average of 4:40 per event).
Both the Rain Garden and Bioswale absorbed a significant amount of runoff and reduced storm runoff
volumes into receiving waters. As with stormwater detention times, runoff volume reductions varied
considerably, depending on storm intensity, soil moisture, and the amount of residual water in the
features. The Bioswale reduced stormwater runoff volumes by an average of approximately 1,187 cf per
storm, or 24.3% of total storm runoff, capturing the first 0.59 of rainfall. In comparison, the Rain
Garden reduced stormwater volumes by 850 cf per storm or 12.8% of total storm runoff, capturing the
first 0.31 of rainfall.
Both features reduced suspended sediment loads and the turbidity of receiving waters but increased
TDS impacts during most storms after the first flush. The Bioswale reduced suspended sediment loads
9

by an estimated 129.9 kg and turbidity by 59%. The Rain Garden reduced suspended sediment loads by
an estimated 22.4 kg and turbidity by 22%. Accumulations of sandy sediment near the inflows to the
Bioswale and Rain Garden support these conclusions.
Total Dissolved Solids were reduced in each feature during the first flush by an estimated mass of 3.6 kg
in the Rain Garden and 5.7 kg in the Bioswale. However, these benefits were negated by increased TDS
in subsequent storm event effluent over the remainder of the season. Cumulative TDS increases over
the monitoring period were estimated at 38.98 kg in the Rain Garden and 4.3 kg in the Bioswale. These
increases in TDS may be the result of fine sediment disturbed during recent feature construction
activities or organic soil amendments. If so we would expect TDS increases to lessen or reverse over
time.
Comparison of first flush influent and effluent concentrations indicate reductions by constituent ranging
from 62% to 100% in the Rain Garden and from 76% to 100% in the Bioswale. One highlight was
reduction of total lead influent concentrations from 14 g/L to below detection limits in Rain Garden
effluent, and from 81 g/L to 1.1 g/L in Bioswale effluent, as compared with a regulatory action level of
15 g/L.
Stormwater infiltration data collected during two simulated storm events, one during the dry season
before feature saturation and on during the late rainy season, when soil conditions were relatively
saturated, indicated bioswale infiltration rates were half as fast saturated conditions. Infiltration in the
rain garden appeared to be significantly slower than in the bioswale, likely due to the shallower
construction depth of the rain garden and the presence of relatively impermeable fine grained soil.
The Bioswale was more effective than the Rain Garden, likely due to the greater depth of the feature
and due to variation in the underlying soils; at both locations, soils were composed of more than 20 feet
of compacted fill that is rich in clays and silts. Rain Gardens and Bioswales constructed in locations with
well developed natural soil profiles would likely function at a higher efficiency. It should be expected
that performance of the site BMP features will improve with age as the planted vegetation matures and
soil infiltration properties develop.

10

Raingarden Stormwater Capture

Rain
Duration
Rainfall
Total Volume
Total
Before
Captured
Captured
Storm
Feature
Before
Storm
Before
Runoff
Overtops Overtopping Total Overtopping(cf)
(cf)

Date

Event

10/5/2010

First
Flush

did not
overtop

0.23"

0.23"

631

631

10/23/2010

Storm
Event 1

4:20

0.34"

5.28"

933

14481

11/7/2010

Storm
Event 2

4:00

0.51"

1.80"

1399

4937

12/5/2010

Storm
Event 3

3:00

0.18"

2.05"

494

5622

12/17/2010

Storm
Event 4

4:25

0.22"

4.40"

603

12067

1/29/2011

Storm
Event 5

5:15

0.45"

1.13"

1234

3099

2/14/2011

Storm
Event 6

11:00

0.41"

1.84"

1125

5046

3/18/2011

Storm
Event 7

1:05

0.07"

0.50"

192

1371

4:40

0.31"

2.43"

850

6665

Average
(does not include First
Flush)

Table 1a. Stormwater captured before the raingarden overtops.

During an average storm, the raingarden captured the first 0.31 inches
rainfall before overtopping. The raingarden absorbed an average of
850 cubic feet per storm (plus an additional volume that was infiltrated
after overtopping; see text.) The feature captured and absorbed 13% of
the total rainfall during the monitoring period (October 1, 2010 March
31st, 2011).

11

Bioswale Stormwater Capture

Date

Event

Rain
Duration
before
Feature
Overtops

Rainfall
Total Volume
Captured
Captured
Before
Storm Before
Overtopping Total Overtopping(cf)

Total
Storm
Runoff
(cf)

10/5/2010

First
Flush

did not
overtop

0.23"

0.23"

463

463

10/23/2010

Storm
Event 1

9:20

0.98"

5.28"

1972

10622

11/7/2010

Storm
Event 2

4:30

0.64"

1.80"

1288

3621

12/5/2010

Storm
Event 3

3:55

0.31"

2.05"

633

4124

12/17/2010

Storm
Event 4

8:45

0.53"

4.40"

1066

8852

1/29/2011

Storm
Event 5

6:45

0.57"

1.13"

1147

2273

2/14 /2011

Storm
Event 6

27:30

0.97"

1.84"

1951

3702

3/18/2011

Storm
Event 7

1:55

0.15"

0.50"

302

1006

8:55

0.59"

2.43"

1187

4889

Average
(does not include First
Flush)

Table 1b. Stormwater captured before the bioswale overtops. The bioswale captured
the first 0.59 inches rainfall before overtopping. The bioswale absorbed an average
1187 cubic feet per storm (plus an additional volume that was infiltrated after
overtopping; see text.) The bioswale captured and absorbed 24% of the total rainfall
during the monitoring period (October 1, 2010 March 31st, 2011). The first storm did
not overtop either BMP.

12

Raingarden Sediment

Date

Event
First Flush

10/5/2010
10/23/2010
11/7/2010
12/5/2010
12/17/2010
1/29/2011
2/14/2011
3/18/2011

Storm Event 1
Storm Event 2
Storm Event 3
Storm Event 4
Storm Event 5
Storm Event 6
Storm Event 7

Average (does not include

First Flush)

TSS
Influent
(mg/L)

TSS
Effluent
(mg/L)

TDS
Influent
(mg/L)

TDS
Effluent
(mg/L)

Turbidity
Influent
(NTU)

Turbidity
Effluent
(NTU)

pH
Influent

pH
Effluent

263

17

202

13

93

20

7.1

5.7

missing

14
21
27
79
72
39

17
12
21
5
20
9
17

13
13
60
27
25
65
27

13
87
79
217
74
134
141

20
4
28
17
24
53
20

17
12
30
9
19
23
20

5.7
5.2
7.1
7.2
6.7
6.6
7.1

6.0
5.8
8.9
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.6

42

14

33

106

24

19

6.5

7.2

Bioswale Sediment

Date

Event
First Flush

10/5/2010
10/23/2010
11/7/2010
12/5/2010
12/17/2010
1/29/2011
2/14/2011
3/18/2011

Storm Event 1
Storm Event 2
Storm Event 3
Storm Event 4
Storm Event 5
Storm Event 6
Storm Event 7

Average (does not include

First Flush)

TSS
Influent
(mg/L)

TSS
Effluent
(mg/L)

TDS
Influent
(mg/L)

TDS
Effluent
(mg/L)

Turbidity
Influent
(NTU)

Turbidity
Effluent
(NTU)

pH
Influent

pH
Effluent

6280

40

438

6000

163

5.6

4.8

missing

40
15

11
7
missing
40
27
47
47

163
17
17
22
52
100
17

23
13
missing
11
24
38
27

4.8
4.8
7.4
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8

4.9

4
39
26
19

7
7
7
13
13
40
13

21

14

30

55

23

6.5

32
53
32
241
75
43

missing

79

missing
missing

6.2
6.7
6.5
6.3
6.1

Percent Reductions
% reduction
TSS
TDS
Turbidity

Raingarden
67%
222% increase
22%

Bioswale
74%

107% increase
59%

Table 2. Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Turbidity, and pH values for the
Raingarden (top panel) and Bioswale (middle panel). Influent and effluent values are shown for the first
flush and each storm event. The bottom panel shows percent reductions in sediment.
13

First Flush Pollutant Concentrations

Raingarden

Bioswale

First Flush Parameters

units

Influent
Concentration

Effluent
Concentration

%
Reduction

Mass
removed*

Influent
Concentration

Effluent
Concentration

% Reduction

Mass
removed

Total Dissolved Soilds

(TDS)

mg/L

202

20

90%

3.61 kg

438

16.7

96%

5.74 kg

pH
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)

pH Units

7.1

6.0

--

--

5.6

4.9

--

--

mg/L

263

17

94%

4.70 kg

6,280

40

99%

82.26 kg

Turbidity at SYRCL
Total Recoverable
Chromium
Total Recoverable
Copper

NTU

135

17

87%

6,000

23

>99%

g/L

41

ND

100%

0.7 gm

492

ND

100%

6.4 gm

g/L

130

42

68%

2.3 gm

422

ND

100%

5.5 gm

Total Recoverable Lead

Total Recoverable
Mercury

g/L

14

ND

100%

0.25 gm

81

1.1

99%

1.1 gm

g/L

ND

--

--

--

143

ND

100%

1.9 gm

Total Recoverable Nickel

g/L

30

ND

100%

0.5 gm

ND

n/a

--

--

Total Recoverable Zinc

g/L

473

ND

100%

8.4 kg

985

ND

100%

12.9 gm

Nitrate as N

mg/L

0.8

ND

100%

14.3 gm

2.2

ND

100%

28.8 gm

Phosphate as P

mg/L

0.25

0.095

62%

4.5 gm

0.178

0.042

76%

2.3 gm

Oil and Grease

mg/L

ND

n/a

--

--

ND

n/a

--

--

Table 3. Pollutant concentrations of first flush influent (10/5/2010) and first effluent (10/23/2010). Total mass removed during first flush is
estimated based on first flush influent concentrations and total stormwater volume absorbed (630.8 cf).

14

Bioswale

Raingarden

Second Raingarden
(Not Monitored)

Figure 1. Rood Center site plan, showing the locations of monitored features.

15