Draft: Blair report on surveys & reviewed docs.docx€¦ · Web viewWater quality concerns were not readily identified through the survey results, but are a major theme discussed

Stormwater Management and Green Infrastructure in Blair County, Pennsylvania

An Inventory of Current Issues, Needs, Strategies, and Opportunities

Photo credit, clockwise from top left: http://www.city-data.com/, BCCD, http://www.drrootcanal.com/, BCCD

Prepared for the MS4 Municipalities of Blair County, PAJanuary 2015

Funding provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation“Building Green Infrastructure in Blair County, Pennsylvania”

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, January 2015 DRAFT 1

Table of ContentsI. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Purpose........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Document Structure.................................................................................................................................................. 5

II. Stormwater Priorities and Management Strategies...............................................................................................6 Municipal Priorities on Stormwater: Flooding, Sediment, and Water Quality................................6

Flooding.................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sediment, Siltation, and Erosion..................................................................................................................7 Water Quality....................................................................................................................................................... 8

Recommended Best Management Practices and Opportunities.........................................................11III. Stormwater Responsibility and Regulations........................................................................................................16

MS4 Communities....................................................................................................................................................16 Comprehensive Plans and Ordinances...................................................................................................18 Existing Ordinance Lines Applicable to Green Infrastructure.....................................................19

Private Landowners................................................................................................................................................21IV. Public Understanding and Education.......................................................................................................................23

Public Perception: Stormwater Concerns.....................................................................................................23 Understanding Stormwater at a Conceptual Level...........................................................................23

Education Needs and Programmatic Examples..........................................................................................24 Suggestions from the Planning Documents..........................................................................................24 MS4 Related Educational Programs........................................................................................................25

V. Resource Gaps and Collaboration Opportunities..................................................................................................27 Permit needs, MS4 limitations, and Resource gaps..................................................................................27 Collaboration............................................................................................................................................................. 28

Collaboration Opportunities for Green Infrastructure....................................................................28 MS4 Work Group..............................................................................................................................................30 Examples of Resource Sharing...................................................................................................................30

Training Opportunities for Developers, Engineers, and Municipal Officials.................................30VI. Funding Needs and Local Strategies.........................................................................................................................32

Funding Restrictions and Limitations............................................................................................................32 Examples of Local Financial Strategies..........................................................................................................33

Management Agreement...............................................................................................................................33 Operating Budget.............................................................................................................................................33

VII. Appendixes......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix A: Planning Documents Reviewed...............................................................................................35


I. Introduction

PurposeThe goal of the “Building Green Infrastructure in Blair County, Pennsylvania” National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant is to accelerate the implementation of green infrastructure stormwater best management practices (BMPs) in the county’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) designated communities and increase the resources necessary to incorporate green infrastructure into long-term planning in the region. These goals will be achieved by the grant recipient, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, and its primary project partners, the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) and American Rivers. The “project team” will deliver technical assistance for training, planning, design, and implementation of green infrastructure practices for municipal stormwater management in Blair County.

In order to effectively assist each of the MS4 communities, the project team has gathered information on existing efforts, existing plans, and available resources in Blair County and developed and distributed a 20 question survey to representatives of each of the MS4 municipalities to better understand short term and long term needs related to stormwater management and adopting green infrastructure.

The purpose of this report is to help “fill in the gaps” by cross-referencing the findings of the needs assessment survey and the previously developed planning materials. This written summary will be used to guide future efforts under the “Building Green Infrastructure in Blair County, Pennsylvania” program and may assist the MS4 municipalities to utilize existing resources and avoid “reinventing the wheel.”

MethodologyDuring the summer of 2014, the project team developed a 20 question survey focusing on the following topics:

● Municipal Stormwater and Green Infrastructure Plans● Regional Connection: Stormwater and Green Infrastructure● Municipal Priorities on Stormwater● Residential/Commercial Opinions on Stormwater● Financing Stormwater and Green Infrastructure● Professional Training: Stormwater and Green Infrastructure

The survey was distributed to the representatives of the 12 municipalities participating in the established Blair County MS4 Work Group. Nine of the municipalities returned completed surveys by mid-October: Allegheny Township, Altoona City, Antis Township, Blair Township, Duncansville Borough, Frankstown Township, Freedom Township, Hollidaysburg Borough, and Logan Township. The 3 municipalities that did not return surveys include Bellwood Borough, Juniata Township, and Newry Borough. The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay staff organized the survey results and


conducted a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis for each of the 20 questions.

During this timeline, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay reviewed numerous planning documents associated with stormwater and green infrastructure in the municipalities and the Blair County region. The documents reviewed included all which were referenced in the survey results, the MS4 permit Notice of Intents (NOIs) submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in 2012, applicable stormwater and development ordinances, regional comprehensive plans, watershed plans, and more. A complete list of documents reviewed is found in Appendix A of this report. The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay analyzed each planning document with the following questions:

● What green infrastructure strategies are discussed in the document?● What green infrastructure projects are called out? Who will be or has been involved in

implementing these projects/ how will or did they get done? Were these projects completed? Why or why not?

● What are the identified major challenges or benefits related to implementing green infrastructure?

● What other ways is this document applicable to the “Building Green Infrastructure in Blair County, Pennsylvania” program’s work plan and deliverables?


Document StructureAs anticipated, several similar themes carried through the planning documents and survey results. The themes are organized in the following structure for this document:


II. Stormwater Priorities and Management Strategies

Municipal Priorities on Stormwater: Flooding, Sediment, and Water QualityThe two most commonly referred to stormwater related issues in the survey results were localized flooding and erosion. Water quality concerns were not readily identified through the survey results, but are a major theme discussed in many of the planning documents.

“The amount of runoff generated from a storm event corresponds to the amount of development that has taken place in a watershed, and as the amount of impervious surface increases, so will the volume and rate of runoff. Therefore, stormwater management planning is necessary to mitigate the impacts of development on watershed health and prevent flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and non-point source pollution” (139).-- The Areawide Comprehensive Plan for Blair County, Pennsylvania (2007)

Flooding7 out of 9 (78%) survey respondents listed flooding as a current major stormwater related issue in their community. The specific problematic areas of flooding identified in the survey responses include:

● Gaysport Neighborhood in Hollidaysburg Borough● Lakemont Neighborhood in Logan Township● Logan Boulevard downstream of Lakemont Neighborhood in Logan Township● Pleasant Valley Boulevard in Logan Township● Plank Road (KMart and Logan Valley Mall area) in Logan Township● Low lying areas throughout Altoona City● Lower Brush Mount Road in Frankstown Township

The Juniata River Watershed Management Plan (2000) identifies stormwater runoff as the number one problem in Blair County, and particularly calls out flooding and stream bank damage from non-agricultural sources. The Blair Township Comprehensive Plan (1978) identifies the areas of Brooks Mill and Vicksburg and some areas in the “Loop” development as places that frequently incur flood damage.

The Beaverdam Branch Greenways Plan (2004) echoes some concerns in the surveys, identifying areas that have “experienced flooding from increased stormwater runoff due to upstream development and constriction of the Beaverdam Branch corridor” (4). Flood prone areas identified in the Beaverdam Branch Greenways Plan and the Beaverdam Branch Watershed Stormwater Management Plan (2000) include:


● Gaysport Neighborhood, Broad Street, and Minnie Ditch in Hollidaysburg● Fort Fetter, Independence Place, and areas east of Duncansville in Blair Township● 40th Street north of PA Railroad tracks and the Eldorado section of Altoona City (flood

mitigation efforts in the Eldorado section have since taken place)● Brush Run and along Route 22 in Frankstown Township● Mill Run and Brush Run in Logan Township (stream restoration project along Mill Run has

since taken place)● Gillians Run and Blair Gap Run in Duncansville Borough

The Areawide Comprehensive Plan for Blair County, Pennsylvania (2007) also calls out several areas within MS4 municipal boundaries that are susceptible to flooding, including:

● Mill Run area in and near Altoona City● Little Juniata River near Bellwood Borough● Many areas in the Beaverdam Branch Watershed● Combined storm/sanitary sewer overflows (CSOs) in Hollidaysburg● Blair and Frankstown Townships, including Lind’s Crossing in Frankstown● Low lying areas in Altoona City and Bellwood Borough

In summary, the following neighborhoods and streets were specifically called out in the reviewed documents:

MS4 Municipality Specific Neighborhoods and Streets for Flooding Concerns

Altoona City 40th Street north of PA Railroad tracks and the Eldorado section

Blair Township Fort Fetter, Independence Place, Vicksburg

Frankstown Township Lind’s Crossing

Hollidaysburg Gaysport Neighborhood, Broad Street

Logan Township Lakemont Neighborhood, Logan Boulevard, Pleasant Valley Boulevard, Plank Road

Sediment, Siltation, and ErosionThe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) developed for the Little Juniata River watershed addresses nonpoint source impacts from sediment. A TMDL acts as a cleanup plan for a watershed to reduce pollution and ensure water is healthy enough to support specific activities. The Little Juniata TMDL directly affects Altoona City, Logan Township, and Antis Township. As outlined in the plan, “Siltation from urban runoff, and organic enrichment from both nonpoint source runoff and municipal point source discharges have been identified as the pollutants causing designated use impairments in the Little Juniata River watershed” (4). While Blair County has additional TMDLs,


the Little Juniata River TMDL is the only one focused on stormwater runoff (nonpoint source) that is contained in the MS4 municipalities.

1.65 miles of Spring Run and 0.97 miles of Kettle Creek are 303d-listed (identified as impaired) streams, with small residential and urban runoff/storm sewers being the sources for siltation. These streams are incorporated into the Little Juniata Sediment TMDL.

Additionally, several other tributaries identified in the planning documents associated with flooding also call out stream bank erosion and sedimentation concerns. The sources of the stream bank erosion and sediment are not always specified, but residential and urban runoff may be key contributors if the Little Juniata Sediment TMDL is presumed applicable to areas outside of that watershed.

6 out of 9 (67%) survey respondents identified erosion as a current major stormwater related issue in their community. This includes stream bank erosion (along Mill Run and Spring Run in and around Altoona City) and other erosion concerns stemming from developments constructed prior to current MS4 permit requirements.

Water QualityWater quality (i.e. pollution) was not directly discussed by most survey respondents. While water quality is inherently tied into addressing the County’s TMDLs and meeting MS4 permit requirements, it is noteworthy that the term “pollution” was not used in any survey response and the term “water quality” was used only once. Conversely, restoring, retaining, and protecting local water quality is a common driver throughout many of the reviewed planning documents. Listed in the following table are just some of the many priority points on water quality derived from the region’s planning documents:

Plan Excerpt

The Areawide Comprehensive Plan for Blair County, Pennsylvania (2007)

“Stormwater management plans and policies should identify mechanisms for mitigating the negative effects of non-point source pollutants from stormwater runoff on streams and water bodies” (81).

Antis Township Comprehensive Plan (2013)

“A constant, growing, demand for an unlimited supply of water requires planning to ensure that adequate, quality water will be available in the future” (92).

Recommended Model Development Principles for Blair County, Pennsylvania (2006)

“These recommendations are aimed at eliminating conflicts...which promotes a best management practice approach to improve water quality, sustain water quantity and integrate federal stormwater management obligations” (11).

Allegheny Township Comprehensive Plan (2003)

“In order to maintain a potable high quality water supply, areas that impact water quality must be protected and planned” (18).


Blair Township Comprehensive Plan (1978)

“...environmental and aesthetic factors have affected the proposed plan by greatly shaping it…[such as] the desire to maintain high water quality in streams…” (99).

Beaverdam Branch Greenways Plan (2004)

“...Greenway efforts can impact remediation and education efforts on environmental topics including flood protection, natural biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and air and water quality. By providing riparian protection, or forest buffers to streams, greenways remediate runoff and remove silt and excess nutrients before they reach the stream” (3).

Positively Altoona Comprehensive Plan (2013)

“...working with the public and private sector to strive towards the common goal of improving water quality and reducing stormwater runoff” (36).

Additionally, the objectives of the MS4 permittees’ Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plans (CBPRP) will produce tangible improvements to the quality of stormwater discharges in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The goal of the “pollution diet” is to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads. One requirement of the CBPRP is for each MS4 to “describe areas where municipal infrastructure upgrades are planned, and an evaluation of the suitability of green infrastructure, low impact development (LID) or environmental site design (ESD) BMPs for planned infrastructure upgrades” (2-3 of the PADEP document Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) TMDL Plan / Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan Instructions / form 3800-FM-BPNPSM0493).

Another TMDL that directly affects some of the MS4 municipalities is the Beaverdam Branch Watershed TMDL (2007). The entire length of the Beaverdam Branch (6.1 miles) and three of its tributaries (Mill Run, Sugar Run, and Burgoon Run) are 303-d listed (identified as impaired). This TMDL addresses high metal (iron and aluminum) levels, which lists the pollutant sources as urban runoff/storm sewers and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Beaverdam Branch is further affected by contaminants from abandoned mine drainage, which were separately addressed in a draft version of the Beaverdam Branch Watershed TMDL from 2003. The majority of the watershed flows through Altoona City and Hollidaysburg.



Recommended Best Management Practices and OpportunitiesThe Center for Watershed Protection produced the Blair County Total Maximum Daily Load and Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan (2014) to address the Little Juniata TMDL, and to begin to address the CBPRP. The first part of the plan outlines strategies to reduce the amount of sediment discharged into the Little Juniata. This involves multiple stormwater BMPs, including several examples of green infrastructure. It then lists potential locations for these BMPs to be installed, along with their estimated costs and the estimated amount of sediment they will reduce. The CBPRP section contains similar project suggestions for areas that discharge into other waterbodies in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and aims to reduce sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus pollution.

If 100% of these projects are implemented, the TMDL & CBPRP Plan estimates that:

● Logan Township would exceed its TMDL sediment reduction goal by 308 tons● Antis Township would exceed its TMDL sediment reduction goal by 110 tons● Altoona would need to reduce its sediment load by an additional 574 tons to reach its goal

While the Blair County Total Maximum Daily Load and Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan (2014) begins to tackle the water quality issues in the region (and especially the Little Juniata River watershed), future expanded efforts will continue to be needed to meet stormwater improvements required in the MS4 permits and included CBPRPs. Several stormwater and green infrastructure strategies have previously been outlined in Blair County’s planning documents. The following table highlights stormwater management practices that are mentioned or discussed in the reviewed documents:




Riparian buffers, stream restoration, wetlands protection and construction, and bioretention were among the most frequently mentioned practices. Similarly, one survey respondent stated that “the long term solution of this problem is to have riparian buffers along as much of the stream bank as is possible…[this] would alleviate at least 90% of the impairments.” The following table lists the stormwater BMPs discussed in the planning documents, along with their relative effectiveness at controlling several stormwater issues:

Practice* Volume Reduction**

Peak Rate Control**

Water Quality** +

TSS**++

Bioretention Medium Low/Med Med/High 85%

Conservation Landscaping Low/Med Low/Med Very High 85%

Constructed Wetlands Low High High 85%

Detention / Retention Basins Low High Low 60%

Green Roofs Med/High Low Medium 85%

Greenways / Open Space Medium Medium Very High -

Impervious Removal Very High Very High Medium varies

Infiltration High Med/High High 85%

Pond Retrofits Low High Medium 70%

Riparian Buffer Medium Low/Med Med/High 65%

Stream Restoration Low-High Medium Med/High 85%

Tree Plantings Low/Med Low/Med Med/High 65%

Water Storage / Cisterns Med/High Low Medium 100%

*Where exact practice terminology did not match, the most closely related BMP was selected. **Stormwater functions and water quality functions derived from the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (2006). The numbers presented are for demonstration purposes only and should not necessarily be used in reporting.+ Used to demonstrate effectiveness of reductions in phosphorus (TP), nitrogen (TN or NO3), and total suspended solids (TSS)++Max reduction in total suspended solids (TSS). TSS are solids in water (such as sediment, which may be caused by erosion and/or flooding) that can be trapped by a filter

According to the BMP manual, riparian buffers are not highly efficient at reducing stormwater volume, peak rate control, or total suspended solids. Wetlands construction and stream restoration provide medium-high levels of control in these areas. Additionally, infiltration and impervious


cover removal are known for efficiently addressing the flooding and erosion problems that survey respondents expressed the most concern with.

Regardless of the efficiencies (or inefficiencies) that each BMP offers, it is important to note that each provides a positive impact on issues related to stormwater. The value of a site specific BMP depends on a variety of factors not incorporated into the table above, including cost-effectiveness, comprehensiveness, collaboration, and a variety of other factors.


III. Stormwater Responsibility and Regulations

MS4 CommunitiesWhen applying for an MS4 permit, municipalities must indicate their plans to fulfill multiple responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is developing and implementing a written stormwater management program, which must include (at a minimum): plans for education and outreach, public participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post-construction runoff control, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations. These requirements are known as the six minimum control measures (MCMs) within the permit.

Other requirements include a written TMDL Plan (if there is any municipality discharge into impaired waters with an approved TMDL), a Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan (if there is any municipality discharge into the Chesapeake Bay watershed), and a stormwater management ordinance enacted within one year of receiving permit coverage.

The following table lists the permit status of each MS4 community in Blair County:

Municipality 2003 MS4 Approved Permit Status

Current Permit Cycle (as of January 2015)

Allegheny Township General Permit Pending: General Permit

City of Altoona General Permit Pending: General Permit

Antis Township General Permit Pending: Individual Permit

Bellwood Borough General Permit Approved: General Permit

Blair Township General Permit Pending: General Permit

Duncansville Borough Waiver Approved: General Permit

Frankstown Township General Permit Pending: General Permit

Freedom Township Waiver Approved: Individual Permit

Hollidaysburg Borough General Permit Pending: General Permit

Juniata Township Waiver Pending: Waiver

Logan Township General Permit Pending: General Permit

Newry Borough Waiver Approved: Waiver



Comprehensive Plans and OrdinancesComprehensive Plans, ordinances, and regulations are mechanisms that municipalities can use to regulate stormwater during new development, redevelopment, and retrofitting. The following table lists the ordinances that have been adopted by the MS4 communities:

Document/Year Amended

Municipality Comprehensive Plan

SALDO Stormwater Ordinance

Other Applicable Ordinances

Allegheny Township*

2003 2001 2005 Floodplain ordinance

City of Altoona*

2013 2011 2011 Zoning ordinance, Floodplain regulations

Antis Township*

2013 2011 2011 Flood damage prevention regulations

Bellwood Borough

Blair Township*

1978 2012 2011 Floodplain ordinance

Duncansville Borough*

2000 Zoning ordinance, Floodplain ordinance

Frankstown Township*

2007 2004 Zoning ordinance, Floodplain management ordinance

Freedom Township*

2003 1991 Floodplain management ordinance

Hollidaysburg Borough

1982 2006 2005 Zoning ordinance, Floodplain management ordinance

Juniata Township

Logan Township*

1999 2002 Zoning ordinance

Newry Borough

*dates confirmed by Blair contacts


Six MS4 communities in Blair County (Allegheny, Altoona, Antis, Blair, Hollidaysburg, Logan) have adopted Comprehensive Plans. These plans outline the environmental, demographic, economic, and educational characteristics of each community, and use this information to plan for future development. Of the six plans mentioned above, three have been updated within the last 10 years; two are 30 years older or more. In order to accurately address current municipal challenges, and respond to advances in sustainable practices, it is recommended that comprehensive plans be reviewed and updated as often as possible:

“Although Section 301(c) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act of 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247, as reenacted and amended) requires that municipal comprehensive plans "be reviewed at least every ten years," there is no legal requirement as to when such plans should be updated or replaced...it is strongly recommended that every plan over 20 years old should be updated. Moreover, it is recommended that new or updated municipal comprehensive plans be prepared and adopted on a multi-municipal basis - preferably by school district, since school districts tend to define functional communities and sometimes even trade areas. By planning together, municipalities can address growth management and redevelopment issues on a scale that would be impossible if each worked alone. Furthermore, more funding opportunities are available for multi-municipal comprehensive plans than for individual municipal comprehensive plans” (297).-- The Areawide Comprehensive Plan for Blair County, Pennsylvania (2007)

Nine of the MS4 municipalities have adopted a Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO). 5 out of 9 (56%) have been updated in the last 10 years. However, every existing comprehensive plan discusses the need to keep municipal ordinances up-to-date. Regularly reviewing and updating these ordinances will ensure that stormwater is considered and properly managed during development. While updating these ordinances, municipalities can also consider the ways green infrastructure can be used to address stormwater needs.

Seven MS4 municipalities have adopted Stormwater Management Ordinances; 5 of these (71%) have been updated within 10 years. Again, keeping these documents up-to-date will ensure that stormwater is properly managed during new development and redevelopment. Municipalities that do not have stormwater management ordinances are required to implement one within one year of implementing their current MS4 permit. Of the four municipalities that specified the model ordinances used for their municipal stormwater ordinances, Allegheny Township and Blair Township adopted the state model ordinance, and Altoona used the state model as a reference. Freedom’s current stormwater ordinance is not based on the state model, but they are in the process of the adopting the current state model ordinance.

Existing Ordinance Lines Applicable to Green Infrastructure


“Land development activities which alter the character of landscape are subject to state and federal laws and permit requirements, but it is the local zoning and ordinances that ultimately make the difference in minimizing the adverse effects of stormwater runoff.”--GreenTreks Network, Inc. via www.stormwaterpa.org

Of the municipalities that have ordinances, several contain language concerning green practices. This language is not always specifically geared towards stormwater management, but may contribute to it just the same--for example, tree plantings help absorb runoff, even if the trees are planted mainly as a visual buffer. The following ordinance provisions reference and/or encourage green infrastructure practices:

Pervious Pavement:

“The recommended approach is...use pervious materials for driveways, parking lots, access roads, sidewalks, bike trails and hiking trails. Provide pervious strips between streets and sidewalks.”--Allegheny Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance, Appendix A, Section E

“Generally, a grass planting strip should be provided between the curb and sidewalk...At the discretion of the Township, pervious concrete or similar type paving that would promote infiltration and reduce runoff may be considered.”--Antis Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 110-41 D

Shade Trees and Landscaping:

“All nonresidential subdivisions and land developments shall include a landscaped buffer area of at least six (6) feet in width along all public roadways and ten (10) feet in width along property lines abutting existing homes, and/or homes under construction.”--Antis Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 110-41 J

“All possible efforts should be made by the subdividers to preserve existing shade trees.”--Antis Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 110-41 L

“Shade trees of varying species shall be planted along all streets within the street right-of-way in accordance with Borough specifications and its Shade Tree Ordinance.”--Hollidaysburg Borough’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 513-5

“Plantings shall be maintained permanently and, where part of a required buffer area or screen, replaced in the event of disease or death. Landscaped areas shall be kept clean of all debris, rubbish, weeds and tall grass.”--Hollidaysburg Borough’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 513-8


Swales:

“The curbing requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Township...When the requirement is waived, grass lined swales or rock-lined ditches shall be required.”--Antis Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 110-41 C

Roof Drainage:

“Avoid connecting impervious surfaces. Route roof runoff over lawns and avoid using storm sewers.”--Allegheny Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance, Appendix A, Section D

“Roof drains shall discharge to infiltration areas or vegetative BMPs to the maximum extent possible.”--City of Altoona’s Planning Code, Section 203E(3c)

“Roof drains shall discharge to infiltration areas or vegetative BMPS to the maximum extent practicable.”--Antis Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance, Section 1303--Hollidaysburg Borough’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 509-4c

Overall, while there is little in the way of requirements for green infrastructure in many of the existing stormwater ordinances and SALDOs, there is existing language which enables green infrastructure in some instances. Ordinance language that requires the use of green infrastructure would ensure its future use, but this may not be a realistic option for some of the MS4 communities. Instead, it is recommended that flexibility is built into the stormwater and development ordinances that encourages or at least allows green infrastructure practices. Beyond language, MS4 communities may further encourage the adoption of these practices through incentive programs.

Private LandownersResidential homeowners, business owners, and other private landowners are inherently responsible (as the property owner) for the operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities and BMPs on their property, unless the local government assumes responsibility of these facilities on non-public land. However, the survey responses indicated that there is a knowledge gap amongst residents on this topic. In many cases, property owners are unaware of their stormwater footprint, and the full burden of stormwater management falls on the municipal government. The municipality is responsible under the MS4 for stormwater that ultimately discharges into waterways, and it can regulate development activities, but property owners can take the lead on managing stormwater on their own properties. Two survey respondents stated that “allocating the responsibility between the property owner(s) and the Township” is the greatest challenge to managing stormwater in their municipalities.


This knowledge gap has caused some conflict between property owners, as well as between property owners and municipalities. Comments included:

● “The largest issue we deal with is the case where a property owner discharges stormwater onto another property owner that is not regulated by the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and the Stormwater Management Ordinance. We need to educate the property owner that this is a civil matter between the adjoining property owners.”

● “Residential property owners need to be reached. Specifically they need to be educated against directing their stormwater runoff onto neighboring properties.”

● “Residents who have experienced damage or have been inconvenienced by runoff water often blame the township for causing the problem or their up-slope neighbor as the cause, even if the storm event leading to the problem was catastrophic. “

Once each stakeholder group has a clear understanding of where problematic runoff is coming from and what they can do to alleviate it, stormwater management can be approached from multiple angles, which should alleviate much of the current frustration. Encouraging the use of green infrastructure on private property could result in having the dual benefit of building better neighbor relationships and helping municipalities meet their stormwater obligations.


IV. Public Understanding and Education

Public Perception: Stormwater ConcernsMultiple survey questions focused on private property owners within the MS4 municipalities. Questions were primarily geared to gauge the level of understanding of stormwater management and its impact on the local community. Concerns regarding the private property owners’ engagement in managing stormwater were discussed in several survey answers.

Understanding Stormwater at a Conceptual LevelSurvey respondents were asked to describe, in their opinion, the average level of understanding of stormwater amongst residents and business owners in their municipalities. Responses focused nearly exclusively on private property owners.

● 5 out of 9 (56%) responses indicated knowledge is “low,” “poor to non-existent,” or indicated that property owners “do not have a clear understanding”

● 4 out of 9 (44%) responses stated “similar to other communities”

One respondent believes that the average person does not understand the concept “more impervious surface = more runoff” and “this needs to be simplified for them - explain in simpler terms what happens to rainfall that hits the ground surface after removing trees, grass and vegetation and replacing with pavement or buildings.”

A related question was also posed in the survey: “To your knowledge, what stormwater related issues are the greatest concerns for residents of your municipality?”

● 9 out of 9 (100%) responses included “flooding” or “excess stormwater runoff”● 8 out of 9 (89%) responses included “property damage”● 0 out of 9 (0%) responses included concerns related to water pollution, environmental

degradation, or other water quality issues

The survey respondents have a unique perspective of the stormwater related problems in their communities, and several of the respondents refer to the complaints being made by property owners to the municipalities. At least in the survey responses, the complaints appear to be isolated to stormwater volume and flow related issues, and not water pollution. While water quality and quantity issues are often connected, the lack of “pollution” responses may point to a knowledge disconnect where residents may not equate stormwater to pollution.

One survey respondent indicated that this is an education problem, stating, “The concept that needs to be publicized is that stormwater is not just about flooding but also includes stormwater management and water quality. That quality is what makes our local waters so valuable and so special. We have control over this watershed and we need to exercise good stewardship when we design, engineer, and build in it.”


Education Needs and Programmatic ExamplesWhen asked which groups in their communities need to be reached to engage in stormwater issues, 7 out of 9 (78%) respondents highlighted residential property owners as a group in need of outreach. One comment noted that an educational program must consider its audience- “residential owners and business owners have different needs and have different goals and budgets.” These programs may also need to be targeted to different locations within each municipality. For example, residents that live in a flood-prone area may require targeted outreach and instruction to help them understand and combat the cause of the flooding.

Suggestions from the Planning DocumentsPublic education on stormwater issues (green infrastructure, conservation, site development, stormwater programs) was a prominent theme in several of the reviewed documents. The following documents listed recommendations, strategies, and/or objectives regarding public stormwater education:

● The Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program: Juniata Watershed Management Plan (2000)

● Assessment for Restoration: Beaverdam Branch of the Juniata River (2004)● Recommended Model Development Principles for Blair County, PA (2006)● The Areawide Comprehensive Plan for Blair County, Pennsylvania (2007)● Positively Altoona (2013)

Recommendations often included a list of responsible parties, potential partners, and a timeline for the education efforts.

“Environmental Strategy 3.6: Promote education efforts to raise awareness among residents and developers on the importance of stormwater management and floodplain protection efforts. Timeframe: Ongoing. Parties: Blair County Planning Commission, Blair County Conservation District” (363).--The Areawide Comprehensive Plan for Blair County, Pennsylvania (2007)

However, most documents did not provide details about how the education program would be constructed and implemented. The Assessment for Restoration: Beaverdam Branch of the Juniata River (2004) was one document that discussed an educational program that had already been completed:

“It was realized early on that the general public, and in particular, residents living near the river had some misconceptions about environmentally correct river improvement methodology. The project partners felt that it was important to take advantage of the public participation opportunities to educate the public. This Growing Greener-funded study took advantage of the public participation opportunities provided through the DCNR project to educate the public about watersheds, riparian buffers, land use, and river health. Educational material was distributed with the mail survey discussed below. Presentations were made at the public meetings discussing riparian


buffers and stream management. In addition to the public meetings, a Riversweep event was held in September 2003, which invited public participation of a river clean up” (16).--The Assessment for Restoration: Beaverdam Branch of the Juniata River (2004)

The responses to the Beaverdam Branch survey mentioned here indicated that the education effort had reached a large number of residents. Therefore, this project suggests that engaging residents through presentations and volunteer activities is one way to share information with many stakeholders. Furthermore, the document noted that “it became evident that the educational and public participation components must continue...for the future implementation phase” of the restoration project. The plan suggests that public education programs should be continuous (and be continuously reviewed for effectiveness) in order to keep the community well-informed on stormwater issues and projects.

MS4 Related Educational ProgramsCurrently, the Blair County MS4 municipalities have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Blair County Conservation District (BCCD) to design a stormwater education program for their residents. This program has included billboard and newspaper advertisements, distributing information to schools and civic groups, public water festivals, and regular public meetings. The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, in conjunction with BCCD and the municipalities, is currently contracted to design a stormwater education website for Blair County. The website will contain narratives on each municipality, their watersheds, and what residents can do to manage their stormwater.

Other ways that the MS4 communities are fulfilling MCM #1 (Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts) and MCM #2 (Public Involvement/Participation) include community newsletters, providing information on the municipality website, keeping brochures and flyers in the municipal office, PSAs on local CATV, sending out pamphlets with building permit applications, storm drain stenciling, volunteer water quality monitoring, and providing a stormwater “hotline” where citizens can report illicit discharges.

The EPA suggests using the following strategies and materials to fulfill educational requirements:

● Brochures or fact sheets for the general public and specific audiences● Recreational guides to educate groups such as golfers, hikers, paddlers, climbers, fishermen,

and campers● Alternative information sources, such as web sites, bumper stickers, refrigerator magnets,

posters for bus and subway stops, and restaurant placemats● A library of educational materials for community and school groups● Volunteer citizen educators to staff a public education task force● Event participation with educational displays at home shows and community festivals● Educational programs for school-age children● Storm drain stenciling of storm drains with messages such as “Do Not Dump - Drains

Directly to Lake”


● Stormwater hotlines for information and for citizen reporting of polluters● Economic incentives to citizens and businesses (e.g., rebates to homeowners purchasing

mulching lawnmowers or biodegradable lawn products)● Tributary signage to increase public awareness of local water resources

The survey responses indicate that effective, targeted educational programs are needed in Blair County in addition to the steps already implemented under MCMs 1 and 2. Suggestions from the planning documents and the EPA may help municipalities develop these new programs.


V. Resource Gaps and Collaboration Opportunities

Permit needs, MS4 limitations, and Resource gapsIn an environment where complex regulations and permit requirements are changing, it can be challenging for MS4 communities to find the time and resources to fulfill their stormwater management duties. Survey respondents feel hindered by the following limitations regarding stormwater management:

● “Keeping informed and up-to-date on the ever changing regulatory program requirements.”● “Problems are primarily related to localized flooding and resulting erosion from older

developments, those constructed prior to current NPDES and local stormwater regulations.”● “Commercial and industrial facilities are more exposed to the stormwater regulations,

however, when installed at their facilities, these stormwater BMPs are often poorly maintained. With limited funding and staff, it is difficult for the Borough to verify these facilities are being properly maintained and functioning.”

● “Continuing verification activities to ensure that stormwater BMPs constructed under the current regulations are operating as designed and are being maintained as required.”

● “The largest challenges we expect are unfunded mandates and permit requirements. Long-term inspection and maintenance of stormwater management facilities will also be a major challenge…”

● “There has not been previous training on green infrastructure stormwater BMP maintenance.”

One limitation of the MS4 permit is that municipalities are still responsible for older infrastructure- those structures built before current NPDES and local regulations came into play. Such developments, which were not held to modern stormwater standards, frequently have flooding and erosion problems that are difficult to remedy. One method of handling this is to develop an asset management program, which municipalities can use to prioritize spending for the repair and replacement of stormwater infrastructure. Installing green infrastructure at these sites can also help reduce these stormwater problems.

In addition, these responses reveal that municipalities lack the necessary resources (adequate time, staff, money, and expertise) to keep up with changing regulations and BMP maintenance. One way for the municipalities to acquire these resources is to join forces and collaborate on their stormwater goals.


Collaboration

Collaboration Opportunities for Green InfrastructureThe survey results revealed that 100% of respondents consider collaboration to be a useful tool when implementing green infrastructure. Several projects and activities were called out as being well suited for collaboration, as can be seen in the following table:

Activity Number of Survey Respondents

Training 9

Planning 5

Locating funding 5

Drain cleaning 3

Equipment sharing 3

Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) 1

Riparian repair 1

Stream bank restoration 1

Hiring a shared MS4 administrator 1

Survey respondents unanimously agreed that training would be a good collaboration activity. Specifically, they mentioned collaborating to train municipal staff on the following topics:

● Operation and maintenance of stormwater BMPs● IDDE

5 out of 9 (56%) respondents would like to collaborate on green infrastructure planning. The same number of municipalities would like to collaborate on locating funding sources and applying for green infrastructure grants. Another collaboration opportunity, as identified in ‘Section II: Who: Stormwater Responsibility and Regulations,’ is for municipalities to collaborate on new Comprehensive Plans. The following graphic shows existing examples of inter-municipal collaboration, as well as areas in which the survey respondents identified opportunities to work together in the future:



MS4 Work GroupBlair County’s MS4 communities, Blair County Conservation District (BCCD), Blair County Planning Commission, Larry Clapper Esquire, and several engineers came together to form the Blair County MS4 Work Group in March 2012. Its purpose is to share municipal resources, information, and advice on fulfilling the MS4 permit requirements. Work Group activities have included joint education and training sessions. In 2013, the Work Group secured a grant through the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) to fund the Center for Watershed Protection’s (CWP) production of the Blair County TMDL and Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan. The Work Group also collaborated with BCCD to apply for a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grant in 2013 to implement several projects from the TMDL plan. The Work Group provides a means for the municipalities to collaborate on the training, planning, and funding activities discussed above.

Examples of Resource SharingThe survey responses revealed that several of Blair County’s municipalities already collaborate with their neighbors on the following activities:

● Maintaining traffic signals● Maintaining community parks● Recreational activities● Land-use mapping● IDDE● Providing public water and sewer services● Sharing of road equipment● Recycling and composting

Some of the resources shared (such as water and sewer) are managed by standalone entities. Other collaboration activities (like maintaining traffic signals and community parks) are organized through signed inter-municipal agreements. There are also informal agreements based on participation, such as the MS4 Work Group, or that use a county entity as the primary manager (such as BCCD managing the MS4 Work Group’s education and outreach efforts).

This tradition of sharing public services, as well as working together on the MS4 Work Group, indicates that Blair County’s MS4 communities may be able to effectively collaborate on green infrastructure strategies for stormwater management in the future.

Training Opportunities for Developers, Engineers, and Municipal Officials9 out of 9 (100%) survey respondents agreed that training their maintenance staff on green infrastructure BMP maintenance would be beneficial at some point. Several respondents were enthusiastic about the idea, stating that “this would be a great help” and “I would recommend...any and all training of the staff.” However, 5 out of 9 (56%) believe that training would not be useful right now, with comments stating there is “no point in training municipal staff if there are no examples of green infrastructure in the community.”


Staff training is a necessary part of any municipality’s plan to “green” the community-- even before green infrastructure is installed, training for municipal staff on topics such as BMP design, function, monitoring, and maintenance is important. Before BMPs are designed and installed, municipal staff should be aware of all of the life stages of BMPs, including operation, maintenance, and repair. This knowledge will help municipalities ensure that their BMPs, which are economic investments, continue to be efficient at managing stormwater many years down the road.


VI. Funding Needs and Local Strategies

Funding Restrictions and Limitations7 out of 9 (78%) survey respondents indicated that funding is the primary challenge in addressing stormwater related issues. Every respondent indicated multiple times throughout the answers provided that securing funding is challenging for the municipalities.

The Blair County TMDL and Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan (2014), developed by CWP, outlines a number of green infrastructure projects and their estimated costs. The following table identifies the estimated cost to each municipality if they complete the suggested projects within their boundaries:

Municipality # Projects Total Estimated Cost Average cost/project

Allegheny Township 10 $214,469 $21,446.90

Antis Township 4 $47,723 $11,930.75

City of Altoona 27 $262,723 $9,730.48

Blair Township 9 $1,166,250 $129,583.33

Duncansville Borough 2 $1,626 $813.00

Frankstown Township 3 $127,652 $42,550.67

Freedom Township 4 $48,137 $12,034.25

Hollidaysburg Borough 3 $114,516 $38,172.00

Logan Township 27 $466,856 $17,290.96

Newry Borough 1 $6,254 $6,254.00

Total: 90 $2,456,206 $27,291.18

*These numbers are cost estimates only and do not necessarily reflect the true cost of project implementation.

Since funding has been identified as a concern and the municipalities can begin to identify project costs, municipalities will need to pursue additional sources of funding and innovative financing strategies/incentives for stormwater management projects. In addition to collaboration between municipalities to secure grant funding, individual communities can collect money through various fees and budget items.


Examples of Local Financial StrategiesReviews of the MS4 municipalities’ ordinances and planning codes, as well as the survey responses, showed that MS4 municipalities have several strategies to collect stormwater management funds.

Management AgreementA common method for funding stormwater BMP maintenance in Blair County is to include a maintenance agreement in new development plans.

“Persons installing stormwater storage facilities shall be required to pay a specified amount to the Municipal Stormwater Maintenance Fund to help defray costs of periodic inspections and maintenance expenses...If a storage facility is to be privately owned and maintained, the deposit shall cover the cost of periodic inspections performed by the municipality for a period of ten (10 years)...If a storage facility is to be owned and maintained by the municipality, the deposit shall cover the estimated costs for maintenance and inspections for ten (10) years.”--Antis Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance, Section 703

Antis Township’s ordinance also notes that if owners fail to maintain their privately owned stormwater facilities, “the municipality may perform the necessary maintenance work” and bill the owner for the expense. Several of the ordinances reviewed have similar provisions for maintenance agreements.

Operating BudgetMultiple questions in the surveys asked respondents to describe their stormwater budgets. 4 out of 9 survey respondents (44%) reported having an operating budget for stormwater management. Additionally, 44% reported that their budgets provide for operations and maintenance, but the municipalities in these two categories did not always overlap. The responses indicate that stormwater funds are drawn from a variety of sources, including:

● The General Fund● Public Works Labor (part of the General Fund)● Highway Department Budget/ Highways, Streets, & Roads Items● General Engineering/ Engineering fees

2 out of 9 respondents (22%) stated that stormwater related funds are acquired on an “as needed” basis. One respondent expressed concern that “not having a line item for long term maintenance is a problem. The old infrastructure...at some point in the future, is going to fail. That will be a significant cost...with no budget or line item to draw from.”

Stormwater BMPs, like any public infrastructure, require monitoring and maintenance throughout their lifetimes in order to work effectively. Therefore, they may require repair after severe storms or other complications. Several grants that fund stormwater projects on public land require maintenance agreements for a period of time after the BMP is installed. In the case of Pennsylvania


DEP Growing Greener grants, for example, a 20 year maintenance agreement is required before beginning construction. Municipalities can explore options for covering these maintenance costs while seeking project funding, or can account for them in their operating budgets.

Municipalities that want to develop a stronger stormwater financial strategy can look to their neighboring communities, such as Antis Township, for guidance. Antis commits funds from its Public Works Labor (General Fund) to install and maintain stormwater infrastructure. Their capital budget, which manages stormwater expenditures over $5,000, appropriates funds for operation, maintenance, and capital needs of stormwater infrastructure. Furthermore, they have created a capital improvements committee to prioritize and implement stormwater projects (as well as other improvement projects). Antis was also the only municipality to report having a currently budgeted improvement project: a 600 linear foot stream bank stabilization project along the Little Juniata River, which is in the design and permitting stages as of October 2014.


VII. Appendixes

Appendix A: Planning Documents Reviewed

Document Name Year Author(s)

A Comprehensive Plan for Blair Township 1978 Blair Township; Blair County Planning Commission

Allegheny Township Comprehensive Plan 2003 Civil & Environmental Design Group, Inc.

Allegheny Township MS4 Stormwater Management Program

2012

Allegheny Township Stormwater Management Ordinance

2005 Allegheny Township

Altoona Planning Code 2011 City of Altoona

Antis Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance 2011 Antis Township

Antis Stormwater Ordinance 2011 Antis Township

Antis Township Comprehensive Plan 2008 Antis Township; Richard C. Sutter & Associates, Inc.

Assessment for Restoration: Beaverdam Branch of the Juniata River

2004 Keller Engineers, Inc.

Beaverdam Branch Greenways Plan 2004 Keller Engineers, Inc.; Stiffler, McGraw & Associates; Richard C. Sutter & Associates, Inc.; Stephen Parks & Associates

Beaverdam Branch Watershed Stormwater Management Plan

2000 Chester Engineers, Inc.

Blair County Total Maximum Daily Load and Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Plan

2014 Center for Watershed Protection

Blair County Tributary Strategy 2005 Blair County Conservation District

Central Blair Recreation and Park Commission Comprehensive Plan

2012 Central Blair County Park and Recreation Commission


Duncansville MS4 Total Maximum Daily Load Plan 2012 Levine Engineering, LLC

Frankstown MS4 Total Maximum Daily Load Plan 2012 Levine Engineering, LLC

Hollidaysburg Comprehensive Plan 1982 Borough of Hollidaysburg

Hollidaysburg Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance

2006 Borough of Hollidaysburg

Juniata Cooperative Weed Management Area: Strategic Management Plan

2010 Natural Biodiversity; Juniata Clean Water Partnership

Newry MS4 Total Maximum Daily Load Plan 2012 Levine Engineering, LLC

The Areawide Comprehensive Plan for Blair County, Pennsylvania

2007 Blair County Planning Commission; Pashek Associates, Ltd.; Wade VanLandingham Inc.

The Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program: Juniata Watershed Management Plan

2000 The Juniata Clean Water Partnership

Positively Altoona 2013 Altoona City Planning Commission

Recommended Model Development Principles for Blair County, Pennsylvania: Consensus of the Local Site Planning Roundtable

2006 Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay; Center for Watershed Protection

Sugar Run Watershed Assessment and Restoration Plan 2003 Blair County Commissioners; Blair County Conservation District

Township of Logan Comprehensive Plan 1999 Logan Township

MS4 NOI: Allegheny Township (General Permit - Renewal)

2012 Allegheny Township

MS4 NOI: City of Altoona (General Permit - Renewal) 2012 City of Altoona

MS4 NOI: Antis Township (Individual Permit - Renewal) 2012 Antis Township

MS4 NOI: Bellwood Borough (General Permit - New) 2012 Bellwood Borough

MS4 NOI: Blair Township (General Permit - Renewal) 2012 Blair Township

MS4 NOI: Duncansville Borough (Waiver - Renewal) 2012 Duncansville Borough

MS4 NOI: Frankstown Township (General Permit - Renewal)

2012 Frankstown Township

MS4 NOI: Freedom Township (Individual Permit - New) 2013 Freedom Township


MS4 NOI: Hollidaysburg Borough (General Permit - Renewal)

2012 Hollidaysburg Borough

MS4 NOI: Juniata Township (Waiver - New) 2012 Juniata Township

MS4 NOI: Logan Township (General Permit - Renewal) 2012 Logan Township

MS4 NOI: Newry Borough (Waiver - Renewal) 2013 Newry Borough
