Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 1
Developing an Integrated Capital Improvement Project Prioritization Model for Strategic Municipal Stormwater Management
Scott D. Bryant, PESenior Engineer / Strategic Planning
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program
PWX 2016 Stormwater Summit
August 29, 2016
2
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 2
Outline
Background for Model [Why?]
Stakeholder Team Collaboration[Keys to the Model]
Model Implementation
Q&A
3
4
Flooding Hazards [street flooding]
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 3
Flooding Hazards [structural flooding]
5
6
Flooding Hazards [non‐structural; limiting access]
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 4
7
Impaired and Degraded Streams
8
Aging and Undersized Infrastructure
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 5
9
Failing Infrastructure
10
Drainage Complaints
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 6
11
Emerging Needs and Opportunities [green infrastructure and rainwater harvesting]
12
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 7
13
Leadership + Vision + Resources + Teamwork
14
Leadership + Vision + Resources + Teamwork
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 8
Outline
Background for Model [Why?]
Stakeholder Team Collaboration[Keys to the Model]
Model Implementation
Q&A
15
Jan – Mar 2015 Stormwater Program/Budget Workshops with City Council
Mar – April Staff Planning / City Strategic Plan Adopted
May 7 SMAC – Project Prioritization Model Kickoff
May ‐ June SMAC Sub‐Committee Workshops #1 ‐ #3
July 9 SMAC – Update & Review Preliminary Model
July 30 SMAC Sub‐Committee Workshop #4
Sept 3 Final Initial Model & Implementation Plan to SMAC
Nov 17, 2015 Update to City Council
Apply for FY 2017 CIP Budget and beyond
Stakeholder Team Collaboration
16
City Council
Stormwater Management Advisory Commission (SMAC)
SMAC + Staff Team
Public Input
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 9
Evaluation and ranking of integrated prioritization model criteria
‐ Pairwise comparisons‐ Consensus on final weights and rankings
17
Summary Results for SMAC + Staff TeamAvg Wt % Avg Rank
Public Safety & Public Health 17.0 1
Flood Hazard Reduction Benefits 13.6 2
Regulatory Mandates & Compliance 12.9 3
Water Quality Benefits 11.3 4
Watershed Management Benefits 10.2 5
Stormwater Infrastructure Asset Management Benefits 9.9 6
Community Support & Implementation Complexity 9.3 7
Resource Leveraging Opportunities 8.6 8
Indirect Community Benefits 7.2 9Sum = 100%
Stormwater Management Advisory Commission + Staff Collaboration
Model Highlights
18
Project Inputs
Project ID Number (ID Number format is "Program ID‐YEAR‐000x") 210‐2015‐0001
Project Name Upper Durant Lake Stream‐Wetland Restoration
Project Location Durant Nature Preserve
River Basin Neuse River Basin
Watershed Perry Creek
Sub‐Watershed (City "Drainage Basin") Perry Creek
Watershed Area Served by Project (watershed area for the project in ACRES) 3500
Parcels Directly Impacted by Project Improvements, if applicable (# of parcels) 1
Council District (A, B, C, D, E) A
Lead Group for Project Program Admin (209)
General CIP Program Category of Project (CIP, DA, SWQCS, CIP‐HM, Other) CIP
CIP Sub‐Category Water Quality Improvement Projects
Primary Type of Project Integrated Representative
Project Scope (Brief Description of Basic Elements; limit to space provided): Restore stream‐wetland system at existing Upper Durant Lake Photo(s):
Partner with City PRCR, possibly PUD as well
Potential grant funding opportunity
Potential mitigation credit opportunity
Priority Perry Creek TMDL watershed
Stage of Project (Preliminary, Budgeted, Active, Complete) Preliminary
Water Quality Performance Parameters for Project, if applicable:
Total annual load of TN reduced by project (in lbs TN/year) 950
Total annual load of TSS reduced by project (in lbs TSS/year) 250000
Project Cost Information:
Study/Engineering Design Cost, estimate ($) $250,000
Construction Cost, estimate ($) $1,750,000
Total Project Cost, computed estimate ($) $2,000,000
Evaluated by: Scott Bryant, PE
Date of Original Evaluation: 9/30/2015
Date Evaluation last Updated: 9/30/2015
Evaluation Checked by: Blair Hinkle, PE
Date Evaluation last Checked:
Basic Eligibility Criteria Yes No N/A
B1. Project located within corporate limits of Raleigh YES
B2. Project receives and/or conveys public runoff* YES
B3. Project is compatible with City Strategic Plan + Comprehensive Plan YES
B4. For DA and SWQCS projects ONLY, petitioner(s) utility fee payment(s) current Not Applicable
[*Stormwater Quality Cost Share (SWQCS) projects are the only exception to B2]
Integrated Prioritization Criteria [Criteria Scoring Metrics] [Criteria Weights] [Criteria Scores]
Public Safety and Public Health 0 5 10 17.0 6
PSH 1. Threat to human life No identifiable threat (0) Intermediate threat (5) High/imminent threat (10) 100% 6 PSH 2. Threat to emergency access/critical location
PSH 3. Other (non‐life) threat to public safety/health
Flood Hazard Reduction Benefits 0 5 10 14.0 4.0
FHR 1. Street Flooding No street flooding (0) Intermediate street flooding (5) Major street flooding (10) 50% 4
FHR 2. Structural Flooding No structural flooding (0) Intermediate structural flooding (5) Major structural flooding (10) 40% 4
FHR 3. Non‐Structural Flooding No non‐structural flooding (0) Intermediate non‐structural flooding (5) Major non‐structural flooding (10) 10% 4
Regulatory Mandates and Compliance 0 5 10 13.0 10
RMC 1. NPDES MS4 Stormwater Permit/Stormwater Management Program No regulatory mandate (0) Intermediate mandate/compliance (5) High priority mandate/compliance (10) 100% 10 RMC 2. Other Local, State, Federal Regulatory Programs
Water Quality Benefits 0 5 10 11.5 9.3
WQ 1. Priority Water Quality Area Non‐priority WQ area (0) 303(d) listed as impaired waters (5) Within Priority WQ Target Area (10) 33% 10
WQ 2. Pollutant Treatment/Pollutant Load Reduction benefits No pollutant treatment/load reduction benefits (0) Significant treatment/load reduction benefits (10) 33% 9
WQ 3. Erosion/Sediment Control/Sediment Load Reduction benefits No erosion/sediment control benefits (0) Significant erosion/sediment control benefits (10) 33% 9
Watershed Management Benefits 0 5 10 10.0 7.8
WM 1. Stream system/riparian area functional benefits No significant stream/riparian/floodplain benefits (0) Stream‐riparian‐floodplain restoration/functional uplift (1 ‐ 10) 25% 8
WM 2. Protect/restore floodplain functions
WM 3. Protect/restore natural hydrologic conditions No hydrologic benefits (0) Hydrologic protection/restoration benefits (3 ‐ 9) Fully restores natural hydrology (10) 25% 8
WM 4. Linkage to watershed/basin master plan/phased system improvements No linkage to master plan or not recommended (0) Linkage to master plan/phased system improvements (1, 5 or 10) 25% 10
WM 5. Known stormwater problem area/valid complaints history No known SW problems/complaints (0) Significant SW problems/high complaint level (10) 25% 5
Stormwater Infrastructure Asset Management Benefits 0 5 10 10.0 7.0
AM 1. Infrastructure condition/effective service life New/excellent condition (0) Intermediate/fair condition (5) Poor/failing condition (10) 25% 8
AM 2. Infrastructure capacity/level of service Full LOS/capacity (0) Intermediate LOS/capacity (5) Poor LOS/capacity (10) 25% 6
AM 3. Consequence/risk of infrastructure failure Low risk/low consequence (1) Intermediate risk/consequence (5) High risk/high consequence (10) 25% 7
AM 4. Infrastructure asset operation & maintenance benefits/cost savings No O&M benefits (0) Intermediate O&M benefits (5) High O&M benefits (10) 25% 7
Community Support and Implementation Complexity 0 5 10 9.0 9.5
CSIC 1. Level of community support/acceptance Low level of support (1) Intermediate level of support (5) High level of support (10) 25% 10
CSIC 2. Right‐of‐Way (ROW)/Easement availability Easements required (0 ‐ 9) All existing Public ROW/Public Land (10) 25% 10
CSIC 3. Project regulatory permitting/mitigation requirements Di ffi cul t to permit/high mitigation (0) Typical permitting/no mitigation required (5) Desirable permitting/mitigation credit (10) 25% 8
CSIC 4. Public and private utility impact/relocation considerations High level of utility impacts (0) Typical level of utility impacts (5) No utility impacts (10) 25% 10
Resource Leveraging Opportunities 0 5 10 8.5 5.0
RL 1. Grant funding opportunity No external funding (0) Beneficial loan opp. (1 ‐ 2) Intermediate external funding, 25% (5) High external funding, 50%+ (10) 100% 5
RL 2. Public‐private (non‐City) funding partnership opportunity
RL 3. Attractive/beneficial loan funding opportunity
Indirect Community Benefits 0 5 10 7.0 8.5
ICB 1. Leading/innovative Stormwater Management (SWM) practice Typical/routine SWM practice (0) Partially innovative (5) Fully leading/innovative SWM practice (10) 25% 7
ICB 2. Integral public educational opportunity No integral public educ (0) Limited integral public educ (5) High level of integral public educ (10) 25% 10
ICB 3. Opportunity to collaborate area improvements with other department(s) Not applicable (0) Intermediate collaborative opportunity (5) Major collaborative opportunity (10) 25% 10
ICB 4. Level of consistency with City Strategic Plan + Comprehensive Plan Not inconsistent (1) Intermediate level of consistency (5) High level of consistency (10) 25% 7
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 10
Model Highlights
19
Project information
Model Highlights
20
9 Integrated Prioritization Criteria
• Defined by sub‐criteria
• 25 total scoring metrics
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 11
Scoring Metrics Example [Flood Hazard Reduction]
Model Highlights
21
7 5 3
Scoring Metrics Example [Asset Management]
Model Highlights
22Table AM 3 adapted from:
8 5
7
10
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 12
Model Highlights
23
Outputs?
[Scores and other information to support decision making]
Project ID
Number Project Name
General
Category
of ProjectPrimary Type of
Project Sub‐Watershed
Council
District
Total
Project
Score
(TPS)
Safety
Criticality
Score
(SCS)
Mission
Criticality
Score
(MCS) Lead Group for Project
Study and/or
Engineering
Design Cost Construction Cost Total Project CostWatershed Area
Served by Project Cost / Area Served
Number of
Parcels Directly
Impacted
Cost / Parcel(s) Directly
Impacted
Annual TN Pollutant
Load Reduced Cost / TN Reduced
Annual TSS Pollutant
Load Reduced Cost / TSS Reduced Cost‐Score Index
(0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) ($) ($) ($) (in Acres) ($/Acre) (# of parcels) ($/# of parcels) (lbs TN/yr) ($/lbs TN/yr) (lbs TSS/yr) ($/lbs TSS/yr) ($/TPS)
210‐2015‐0001 Northshore Lake/Spillway Rehab/Wetland CIP Integrated Marsh Creek B 73.39 100.00 91.74 Infrastructure (210) $375,000 $4,091,722 $4,466,722 850.0 5,255 26 171,797 811 5,508 205,304 22 60,861
Model Highlights
24
Outputs?
[Scores and other information to support decision making]
Project ID
Number Project Name
General
Category
of ProjectPrimary Type of
Project Sub‐Watershed
Council
District
Total
Project
Score
(TPS)
Safety
Criticality
Score
(SCS)
Mission
Criticality
Score
(MCS) Lead Group for Project
Study and/or
Engineering
Design Cost Construction Cost Total Project CostWatershed Area
Served by Project Cost / Area Served
Number of
Parcels Directly
Impacted
Cost / Parcel(s) Directly
Impacted
Annual TN Pollutant
Load Reduced Cost / TN Reduced
Annual TSS Pollutant
Load Reduced Cost / TSS Reduced Cost‐Score Index
(0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) ($) ($) ($) (in Acres) ($/Acre) (# of parcels) ($/# of parcels) (lbs TN/yr) ($/lbs TN/yr) (lbs TSS/yr) ($/lbs TSS/yr) ($/TPS)
210‐2015‐0001 Northshore Lake/Spillway Rehab/Wetland CIP Integrated Marsh Creek B 73.39 100.00 91.74 Infrastructure (210) $375,000 $4,091,722 $4,466,722 850.0 5,255 26 171,797 811 5,508 205,304 22 60,861
Project ID
Number Project Name
General
Category
of ProjectPrimary Type of
Project Sub‐Watershed
Council
District
Total
Project
Score
(TPS)
Safety
Criticality
Score
(SCS)
Mission
Criticality
Score
(MCS)
(0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100)
210‐2015‐0001 Northshore Lake/Spillway Rehab/Wetland CIP Integrated Marsh Creek B 73.39 100.00 91.74
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 13
Model Highlights
25
Outputs?
[Scores and other information to support decision making]
Project ID
Number Project Name
General
Category
of ProjectPrimary Type of
Project Sub‐Watershed
Council
District
Total
Project
Score
(TPS)
Safety
Criticality
Score
(SCS)
Mission
Criticality
Score
(MCS) Lead Group for Project
Study and/or
Engineering
Design Cost Construction Cost Total Project CostWatershed Area
Served by Project Cost / Area Served
Number of
Parcels Directly
Impacted
Cost / Parcel(s) Directly
Impacted
Annual TN Pollutant
Load Reduced Cost / TN Reduced
Annual TSS Pollutant
Load Reduced Cost / TSS Reduced Cost‐Score Index
(0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) ($) ($) ($) (in Acres) ($/Acre) (# of parcels) ($/# of parcels) (lbs TN/yr) ($/lbs TN/yr) (lbs TSS/yr) ($/lbs TSS/yr) ($/TPS)
210‐2015‐0001 Northshore Lake/Spillway Rehab/Wetland CIP Integrated Marsh Creek B 73.39 100.00 91.74 Infrastructure (210) $375,000 $4,091,722 $4,466,722 850.0 5,255 26 171,797 811 5,508 205,304 22 60,861
Cost / Area Served
Number of
Parcels Directly
Impacted
Cost / Parcel(s) Directly
Impacted
Annual TN Pollutant
Load Reduced Cost / TN Reduced
Annual TSS Pollutant
Load Reduced Cost / TSS Reduced Cost‐Score Index
($/Acre) (# of parcels) ($/# of parcels) (lbs TN/yr) ($/lbs TN/yr) (lbs TSS/yr) ($/lbs TSS/yr) ($/TPS)
5,255 26 171,797 811 5,508 205,304 22 60,861
Outline
Background for Model [Why?]
Stakeholder Team Collaboration[Keys to the Model]
Model Implementation
Q&A
26
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 14
Each sectional team uses the model to help envision, identify, and evaluate potential projects on an ongoing basis
On a regular quarterly basis ‐ projects evaluated and reviewed at sectional levels are placed into an integrated master portfolio of potential CIP projects
The developing CIP Portfolio is reviewed and vetted by the cross‐sectional CIP Leadership Team
Strategic updates to SMAC culminating in annual CIP program budget recommendations for official consideration
As a best practice, continual improvement/adaptive management updates to the model are regularly noted, discussed, and incorporated ahead of the upcoming fiscal calendar year. Updates provided to SMAC and City Council, as appropriate, on any revisions/improvements, etc.
Model Implementation
27
Direct Outcomes Achieved
28
Key Decision Support Tools for Stormwater CIP Planning Process
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 15
Direct Outcomes Achieved
29
Key Decision Support Tools for Stormwater CIP Planning Process
• Heightened Program Transparency and Accountability
• Heightened Program Integration
– encourages team‐based, innovative, and strategic approach to stormwater management
– preferred projects help achieve stormwater quality and quantity goals
– provides framework and priorities for enhanced watershed management
• Aligned with City Strategic Plan
– leading practice consistent with organizational excellence
– contributing to overall community quality of life and advancing the City of Raleigh
Larger Stormwater Program Benefits
30
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 16
Thanks
31
Dale Hyatt
Outline
Background for Model [Why?]
Stakeholder Team Collaboration[Keys to the Model]
Model Implementation
Q&A
32
APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 17
For more information
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program
Web:Raleighnc.gov search “stormwater”
Scott Bryant, PESenior Engineer / Strategic [email protected]
33
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
1
Beth Neuendorf, MnDOT Metro Water Resources Engineer
Barb Loida, MnDOT Metro MS4 Engineer
John Gulliver, University of Minnesota Civil Engineering and St Anthony Falls Laboratory
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
2
Had GIS System to Capture Field Inspections, but not everything in it.
We mapped the rest using As-Builts, Plan Sets,Field Reviews, Video Contracts
Can be displayed on our GIS tool on our iHUB website.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
3
Clearly lays out BMPS – those apply to all facilities and those unique to that facility.
Lays out responsibilities.
Covers inspections and training that must be done.
Contains a map for stormwater for each facility.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
4
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
5
• Metro area from 2012 list there are 320 impaired waters. 2014 proposed list add 66.
• These waters are listed on EPA’s 303d list.
• Impaired waters require a TMDL study.
• We need to know how this impacts us.
Chloride
Dissolved Oxygen Nutrients
Turbidity
BACTERIA (E.COLI)
Biotic Impairments
These need to address in projects. Bacteria and Chloride are more operational issues.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
6
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
7
Communication between MS4 and WRE Design Staff
• What TMDL?• Where is it?• Do we have a WLA?• What do we need to do about it?
MnDOT has 100’s of project in the Metro area each year. So question becomes how to communicate TMDL and WLA needs with designers.
1st Attempt
Access Database
Issues:
• Multiple lakes with same name
• Many unnamed creeks
• Need to see where in relation impaired water is to our R/W
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
8
2nd Attempt
• GIS tool on MnDOT’s iHUB website• Used familiar transportation theme – stop
lights• Allows designers to see where their project is
in relation to impaired water, what water is impaired for, if we have a WLA, if it is met, and if not, how to address it in the design and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
What we did?
• Used MPCA’s spatial information from their GIS database and merged it with ours.
• Went through TMDL reports and added information (do we drain to waterbody, if so, what is our WLA, what % of watershed is ours, what highways drain to it…)
• Have our geodatabase loaded onto Georilla and regularly updated.
• All of this is being done in house.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
9
Color Data Shows What Extra You Need to Do:
RED
MnDOT WLA YES
MnDOT WLA Met NO
MnDOT Drain To YES
List in SWPPP* and see if you can provide
extra treatment.
ORANGE
MnDOT WLA NO, TBD
MnDOT WLA Met NO, TBD, NA
MnDOT Drain To YES, TBD
List in SWPPP* if MnDOT has drainage to
the impaired water.
YELLOW
MnDOT WLA YES
MnDOT WLA Met YES
MnDOT Drain To YES
List in SWPPP*.
GREEN
MnDOT WLA NA
MnDOT WLA Met NA
MnDOT Drain To No
You don’t have to do anything!
GREY HATCHEDDelisted
You don’t have to do anything, waterbody
meets state’s WQ standards.
WHITEFor Chloride and E.coli Check if bridge drainage and see if
treatment is possible.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
10
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
11
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
12
Waiting for Georilla to be Updated
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
13
Impaired waters list updated every two years. And the lists generally take EPA two years to approve.
Each impaired water has may subwatersheds. Still need for designers to look closer at areas since all subwatershed layers are too extensive to put on Georilla.
Need for TMDL studies to show existing loads for all lakes and streams so know what our targets are.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
14
• Provides an effective tool for communicating between designers and MS4 staff for how to address TMDLs, WLAs and impaired waters in projects.
• Captures project information in our database for our annual MS4 report.
Questions
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
15
Federal funded project, pass through money via the MN Pollution Control Agency.
Competitive process. Joint project between University of Minnesota,
MnDOT and City of Roseville. Funding/Contract 2012.
Iron filings research showed great promise in removing dissolved phosphorus and heavy metals.
A lot of waterbodies in MN classified as impaired for nutrients (phosphorus).
Looking for a more cost effective BMP for small watersheds.
Desire to have something MnDOT Maintenance forces could build.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
16
Total Phosphorus
Dissolved phosphorus
Phosphate
Dissolved Organic Phosphorus
Particulate Phosphorus
~56%
~4%
~44%
~40%
0.45 μm filter
Filter particulate phosphorus, need to treat for phosphate
Elemental iron rusts => Fe+3 => Reacts with and captures phosphate
Use sand to◦ Filter particles◦ Slow down water to allow contact with iron◦ Keep iron from consolidating
Vertical Iron Enhanced Sand Filters had been successful ~70% iron retention
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
17
(Ahmed et al. 2014)
(Natarajan and Gulliver 2015)
Laboratory prototype◦ Flume tests C33 sand-iron filings media Iron fabric media
Re-design w/ coarser sand-iron media◦ Sand selection D50 = 1.18 mm◦ Column tests for P retention 92.5% Sand + 7.5% Iron
Were existing soil filters
Pink are locations for research
Replaced 2, fixed 1
Green lines ditch flow
Ditch is receiving sheet flow from highway.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
18
Filter Media – 93% construction sand, 7% iron filings by weight.
Growing media – 1 compost mix, 1peat mix
All rock – washed.
Fencing for cage – coated so we weren’t adding zinc to system.
Impermeable barrier added to trench – could sample.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
19
Need for covering rip rap – safety issue. Finding fabric that would allow necessary
amount of water through. Media Design – determine size of sand. Getting bags sewn.
Removal of soil at existing ditch block
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
20
Shaping ditch
Trench for filter cage
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
21
Sign crew building cage
Installation of filter bags
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
22
Burrito method
Cage finished with sampling site in and river rock.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
23
Installation of choker coarse rock
Installation of soil
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
24
Finished with salt tolerant sod
$5,200 for Design and Oversight
$10,000 in Materials
$13,000 for Labor
$13,000 for Equipment
First time we built these – expect costs for building in future go down.
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
25
Go with burrito type system.
No cage
Use only in narrow ditches
Use sources for materials more readily available
Sand-iron filter insert performance◦ Storm events (Summer 2015)◦ Water levels, filter outflow (Dupuit’s equation)◦ Composite WQ Samples Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP)
Sampling location
**Not drawn to scale**
Instrumentation in Monitoring well
Sampling tube from ISCO sampler
Pressure transducer
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
26
Existing soil berm (without filter insert)
Site 3Existing soil bermDrainage area = 0.22 ha
Stillwater, Washington County, MN
Sampling location
Sand Bag Ditch Block Failed
Proper width and sealing to prevent leakage, flow bypass◦ Re-installation?
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
27
Date Rainfall (cm)
SRP EMCin(µg/L)
SRP Mass Removal Date Rainfall
(cm)SRP
EMCin (µg/L)
SRP Mass Removal
5/3/15 1.13 666 47.1% 6/17/15 2.54 114 35.4%
5/10/15 0.91 885 43.1% 6/22/15 1.24 128 36.6%
5/14/15 1.14 627 36.0% 6/28/15 0.76 283 14.9%
5/17/15 1.02 561 46.2% 6/29/15 1.88 116 40.1%
5/24/15 3.14 1000 53.9% 7/6/15 10.7 218 -10.5%
5/29/15 1.59 417 45.3% 7/28/15 0.79 202 43.1%
6/3/15 1.9 280 36.1% 8/18/15 3.54 274 36.0%
6/11/15 1.08 457 28.2% 8/22/15 4.11 184 -8.70%
6/13/15 1.77 168 41.7%
Mass Removal for 17 events: Mean = 33%; Median = 37%; Cumulative = 35%
SRP: Soluble Reactive PhosphorusEMC: Event Mean Concentration
Date Rainfall (cm)
SRP EMCin(µg/L)
SRP Removal Date Rainfall
(cm)SRP
EMCin (µg/L)
SRP Removal
5/14/15 1.13 486 -29.8% 6/29/15 1.88 181 2.49%
5/29/15 1.59 290 -0.69% 7/6/15 10.7 416 14.2%
6/3/15 1.90 342 -8.2% 7/12/15 6.25 121 -37.2%
6/7/15 2.13 143 -199% 7/18/15 2.36 151 10.7%
6/13/15 1.77 232 15.9% 8/18/15 38 283 -111%
6/20/15 1.22 57.2 -180% 8/22/15 4.11 244 -55.3%
6/22/15 1.24 144 -109%
SRP: Soluble Reactive PhosphorusEMC: Event Mean Concentration
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
28
Assume:• Five iron-enhanced ditch blocks in series, • Equal lengths between the ditch blocks, • Equal inflow off of the slope of the ditch into the ditch
center, • No infiltration in the center of the ditch, and• A 35% retention in each ditch block for phosphate. Then, the concentration coming out of the last ditch block is 33% of the concentration coming inor 67% removal of phosphate
Can improve runoff treatment by roadside ditches
Remove runoff phosphate◦ 35% average reduction
In-series installation for greater reduction Long-term performance and maintenance
needs yet to be investigated◦ Effect of top soil cover
APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016
29
Received Funds to Monitor for an Additional 3 Years
Questions
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
1
NATIONAL MUNICIPAL STORMWATER ALLIANCE
(NMSA)
WHO AM I?
Randy Neprash, PE
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
2
OVERVIEW
•Background information on NMSA
•NMSA Action areas
•Current status of NMSA
•NMSA Members
•What’s next?
•Questions
WHAT IS NMSA?
An alliance of state and regional
groups comprised of MS4 permittees
that is solely focused on MS4 issues
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
3
PROBLEM STATEMENT
“Stormwater runoff is the only major source of
water pollution that is increasing in many parts of
the U.S.; however, stormwater infrastructure is still
often considered a secondary or ancillary
infrastructure segment. In order to meet the
rising challenge of stormwater pollution, the
function of stormwater infrastructure must be
enhanced.”
MOTIVATION FOR FORMATION
• To represent MS4 permittees at the national level by providing a unified voice
• To lead changes in regulation both proactively and reactively
• To connect and unite MS4 programs
• To promote stormwater as a resource
• To improve the public image of stormwater
• To create opportunities for multi‐benefit and multi‐use stormwater projects
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
4
VISION FOR NMSA
• NMSA’s vision is to provide clean water for the
nation
• This vision will be met through the following
Supporting Principles:
• Provide efficient programs
• Provide effective programs
• Base decisions on science
OUR ACTION AREAS
• SECTOR SUPPORT AND INFORMATION
• MESSAGING & COMMUNICATION
• EDUCATION
• POLICY/ADVOCACY
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
5
SECTOR SUPPORT AND INFORMATION
• Explore topics and related projects at a national
scope that are of interest and benefit to MS4s
• Coordinate technology and information transfer at
the national level between state and regional‐level
MS4 groups
• Communicate with member MS4s across multiple
topics using a variety of information dissemination
venues and platforms
SECTOR SUPPORT AND INFORMATION
• Coordinate with other national organizations that
impact the MS4 sector
• Assist states in managing existing or forming
new/nascent state and regional‐level groups
representing MS4 permittees
• Work with WEF member associations in a
collaborative fashion
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
6
MESSAGING & COMMUNICATION
• Distribute information about court rulings and
new rules & regs
• Collect, reformat, generate, and distribute public
education materials related to MS4 programs and
policies
• Explore national media campaign(s) to amplify
public education for stormwater
EDUCATION
• Provide exchange forums for MS4 permittees
• Support & expand public education for
stormwater
• Provide or support technical reports
• Provide or support guidance manuals
• Host technical forums
• Support member activities and conferences
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
7
POLICY/ADVOCACY
• Speak directly with EPA staff
• Provide a conduit to Federal regulatory and
legislative contacts of interest to MS4 community
• Provide strategic support on regulatory and
legislative actions at state/local level
• Provide formal comments on federal regulatory
proposals from the perspective of MS4 permittees
POLICY/ADVOCACY
• Provide timely communications on pending and
ongoing regulatory and legislative actions impacting
the MS4 community
• Provide policy analysis to MS4 community
• Coordinate and work with other national groups to
amplify messages on MS4 issues
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
8
WHERE WE ARE NOW
• We have incorporated as a 501(c)(3)
• Currently completing the non‐profit establishment phase
• Executive Committee beginning the work of the organization
• Completed a charter and recommendations for the organization
• We have formalized an MOU with WEF and are part of the WEF Stormwater Institute
MEMBER GROUPS
• State/regional groups of MS4 permittees
independently formed in over 20 states
• Is there a group in your state that we should know
about?
• These groups provide critical support for MS4
programs
• Chair and vice‐chair from state‐level groups
• 10 groups currently members of NMSA; in discussion
with 22 in total
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
9
CURRENT MEMBERS
• Initial stormwater organizations making up the NMSA
membership:
1. Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition
2. California Stormwater Quality Association
3. Central Massachusetts Regional Stormwater Coalition
4. Ohio Stormwater Association
5. Tennessee Stormwater Association
6. Indiana Association for Floodplain and Stormwater Management
7. Iowa Stormwater Education Partnership
8. Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association
9. Arizona stormwater outreach for regional municipalities
10. Louisiana Urban stormwater coalition
NEXT STEPS
• Continue to engage in outreach to gain new
members
• Focus on products / initiatives
• Quarterly calls with membership for consistent
input
• Continue regular engagement with EPA
• Better understand the needs of MS4 permittees
and articulate them to EPA staff
APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016
10
GET INVOLVED
• www.nationalstormwateralliance.org
• Leadership:
• Chair: Randy Neprash, Minnesota Cities
Stormwater Coalition
• Vice Chair: Scott Taylor, California
Stormwater Quality Association