Transcript Document

Stormwater
Management
Challenges and
Opportunities
Agenda
• Other State Programs
• Case Studies
– Spokane County
– Ada County (Boise)
• Links to TMDLs
7 Areas Listed in Montana
• Montana
– Billings, Yellowstone County, and MDT
– Great Falls, Cascade County, and MDT
– Missoula, Missoula County, and U of M and
MDT
– Bozeman, MSU and MDT
– Helena
Montana listed those
– Kalispell and MDT
over 10,000 people
with 303 (d) listed
– Butte and MDT
streams and areas
that met population
– MDT in Helena
densities.
3 Areas Listed in Wyoming
• Wyoming
– Cheyenne
– Casper
– Sheridan (pending)
• Idaho
–
–
–
–
Boise (Phase 1 City)
Pocatello
Idaho Falls
Many others
Wyoming listed those
over 10,000 people
with data showing an
impact of the system
on water quality
Idaho is giving
individual MS4
permits rather than a
General Permit
Washington
•
•
•
•
•
Published permit in 2007
Cities appealed
Resolved in 2008
First annual reports due in 2009
Separated into East/West
Washington listed cities
with more than
10,000 population and
303(d) listing
Washington Permit
• “The SWMP shall reduce pollutants to the
Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) …and
to apply All Known, Available, and
Reasonable methods of preventional control
and Treatment (AKART) prior to discharge
to protect water quality”
Requires Consideration of Low
Impact Development Techniques
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LID consideration is required
More prescriptive language overall
Must document how BMPs are selected
Expected Performance
DOE provides BMP manuals
Field Surveys required
Annual Reporting Forms
Monitoring in Washington
• Each City must designate two sites for
“effectiveness monitoring”
• Submit a monitoring plan
• No numeric targets included
Ada County Highway District
(Boise Area)
•
•
•
•
•
•
$700,000 operating budget (250,000 people)
Does not include capital programs
Funded out of the general fund
5 FTEs
Audited by Region 10 EPA in 2008
Settlers Irrigation Lawsuit filed in 2009
– Basis of the claim is water quality degration
from City stormwater
– Pioneer Irrigation District has sued the City of
Caldwell as well
Ada County Highway District
(Boise Area)
• TMDL highlights Phosphorous, Bacteria and
Sediment
• BMPs are chosen based on these needs
• IDEQ has issued a broad manual
• Homeowners associations are responsbile
for maintenance (Inspections are required)
Spokane County, Washington
• Basics
– 500,000 people
– 7 FTEs
– Collect $6M in fees, average $1.5M in capital per year
• Largely Dry Wells
– Required to register all dry wells by 2012
– Required to identify any potential problem locations by
2012
– Approved list of BMPs for Dry Wells (mostly filtration)
• Utility established in 1992
– $21/yr for average residence
– Charge commercial at the same rate per sf as residential
Spokane County, Washington
• Newly Established Three Priority Areas with
higher rates
–
–
–
–
–
$45-65 per year in priority areas
High flooding
Dense Development
Water Quality challenges
Identified in Master Plan
Montana Timeline
• First annual reports
were turned in
January 28, 2008
• Plan implemented
by the end of 2010
Cities should participate in the TMDL process to
advocate for Stormwater as well as Wastewater
There should
be a link
between
chosen BMPs
and
impairment
Decision process should match
impairment listings
Pollutant Source/
Activity
Vehicle Service
Facilities
Physical
Parameters
Synthetic
Organics
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Heavy
Metals
x
x
x
Gas Stations
x
x
x
Metal Fabrication
Shops
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Nutrients
Pathogens
Sediments
x
x
x
x
x
x
Restaurants
Auto Wrecking
Yards
x
x
Mobile Cleaners
Parking Lots
x
Residential
Dwellings
x
x
x
Parks/Open Spaces
Construction Sites
x
City Shops
x
Streets and
Highways
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Marinas
x
Golf Courses
Sewer Overflows
x
x
x
x
When permits are renewed, numeric load
targets may be added.
Many parties contribute to stormwater in the Helena area
Timeline
Montana cities may face
water quality BMPs in
the future
Standards were set
at MEDIAN
numbers
Initial sampling results
(mg/L)
Standard
City data
TSS
125
464
COD
80
162
Total P
0.41
0.64
Total N
2.0
3.8
Copper
0.04
0.036
Lead
0.165
0.026
Zinc
0.210
0.377
Initial sampling results from two cities were over median values
Tips for Sampling Permitting
• Choose sites where you could implement at
BMP if you needed to
• Choose where downstream treatment (even
subsurface) is already taking place
• Sample the receiving water body at the same
time that you sample your discharge
Case Studies from other MS4
with Finalized TMDLs
• Virtually all
called for
percentage load
reductions and
constructionrelated BMPs
mandated
through the MS4
permit
Many case studies used the
Phase 2 program to ensure
compliance
Is a Master Plan Required?
• The permittee shall provide a rationale
for why each of the BMPs and
measurable goals was selected.
• Documentation of your decision
process is required.
In some areas,
decision process
documentation
language includes
significant
requirements.
What should you do?
•
•
•
•
Budget now for future costs of the program
Form a utility now if you haven’t already
Sample, sample, sample-more data is better
Document your decision process for
choosing permit activities, link choices to
impairment listing
Areas for Potential Collaboration
in Stormwater Management
1. Engineering Standards and BMPs
2. Operation and Maintenance Standards
3. Phase 2 NPDES Annual Reporting
1. Engineering
Standards
Outline of Engineering Standards
from Helena
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Hydrologic Analysis
Hydraulic Analysis & Design
Water Quality Best Management Practices
Materials
Methods of Construction & Best Management
Practices
F. Sediment and Erosion Control
G. References
Best Management Practices
• Issues
– Lots of BMP Manuals/Catalogs Available from Other Sources, But
What’s Applicable for Montana Cities?
– What Constitutes Pollutant Removal to the “Maximum Extent
Practicable” (MEP)?
• Montana Specific Considerations
– Appropriate Sizing for Montana Hydrology
– Design and Construction for Effective Performance
• Target Montana Water Quality Pollutants of Concern
– Reasonable Maintenance
• Potential Benefit to Montana Cities
– Avoid Duplicate Efforts
– Leverage Development of Core BMPs for Common Needs
– Streamline Review for City Staff
Stormwater BMPs for Upper Great
Plains/Rocky Mountain Climate
• Appropriate Plant Selection
– Re-vegetation During Short
Growing Season
• Cold Weather
Considerations
– Freeze/Thaw
– Rain-on-Snow
• Modifications for
Implementation
– Baffling of Detention Ponds
– Heat Tracing?
Example Stormwater BMPs
• Helena Stormwater BMPs include:
– Water Quality (Runoff Treatment)
• Source Control (Good Housekeeping)
• Categorized Structures
– Conventional Pollutant
– Oil/Water Separation
– Nutrient Treatment
– Runoff Control (Runoff Quantity Control)
• Detention Facilities
• Infiltration Systems
Example Stormwater BMPs
Section – Combined Runoff Treatment/Detention Vault
Example Stormwater BMPs
Section – Spill Control Oil/Water
Separator
Advanced and Emerging Treatment and
Control Technologies for Stormwater
• Hydrodynamic Separators
–
–
–
–
–
–
Stormceptor
BaySaver
VortechsTM
Downstream DefenderTM
CDSTM
V2B1TM
• In-Line Filtration Systems
– Stormwater Management Inc. (StormFilter)
– Aquashield, Inc. (Swirl Concentrator and Filter)
– Zeta Technology (Arkel Filter)
• In-Drain Filtration Systems
–
–
–
–
–
–
Stormwater Management Inc. (Catch Basin StormFilter)
AbTech Industries (UltraUrban Filter)
UltraTech International (Catch Basin Insert)
Hydro Compliance Management, Inc (Hydo-Kleen Filtration)
DrainWorks, Inc (DrainPac)
Kristar Enterprises, Inc (Flo-Guard Plus)
Hydrology Modeling
• Issues
– Is The Existing Basis for Facilities Sizing Appropriate?
– What Constitutes Pollutant Removal to the “Maximum Extent
Practicable” (MEP)?
• Montana Specific Considerations
– Appropriate Sizing for Montana Hydrology
– Design and Construction for Effective Performance
• Target Montana Water Quality Pollutants of Concern
– Reasonable Maintenance
• Potential Benefit to Montana Cities
–
–
–
–
–
Consistent Basis for Sizing Stormwater Facilities
Regulatory Agency Concurrence
Avoid Duplicate Efforts
Leverage Development of Engineering Approach to Sizing
Streamline Review for City Staff
Hydrology Models for Single Event
Sizing (and Continuous Simulations)
• Several modeling applications are in Helena
Engineering Standards
–
–
–
–
–
Stormshed
StormCAD
SWMM
TR-20
HSPF
• Rational Method (Q=CIA) allowed only for
sizing conveyance facilities
Off-the-Shelf Software Application
(StormShed) - Usability
• Simple stick figure
construction of
stormwater system
• Relatively
inexpensive for Cities
and Engineers to
acquire (Example
StormShed: $2,400
for the first license
and $1,200 for each
additional license)
2. Operation and
Maintenance Standards
Operation and Maintenance
Standards
• Issues
– Are City’s Existing Maintenance Practices Adequate?
– Are There Common Practices That Could Be
Standardized?
• Montana Specific Considerations
– Much of New Stormwater Infrastructure is Constructed
by Developers
• Who Will Ultimately Maintain These Facilities?
• Potential Benefit to Montana Cities
– Reliable Plan for Expanding Infrastructure
– Phase 2 NPDES Permit Compliance
Standardize O&M Practices
• Goals for frequency of
maintenance activities?
• Goals for condition
assessment?
• Standard O&M
agreements?
• Many Phase 1s have
gone to annual
inspection
• Developer Bonds for
O&M?
Stormwater Maintenance and
Operational Practices
3. Phase 2 NPDES
Annual Reporting
Phase 2 NPDES Annual
Reporting
• Issues
– New Administrative Tracking and Reporting Burden for
Cities
• Montana Specific Considerations
– Satisfying MDEQ’s Phase 2 Stormwater NPDES Permit
For An Acceptable Annual Report
• Potential Benefit to Montana Cities
– Standardize Annual Permit Report Format and Content
– Concurrence from MDEQ on Acceptability
– Streamline Review for City Staff
Standard Annual Reports
Cover page from DB from Amanda
Cover page of Helena’s permit application
Questions?
Overview of EPA
Phase II NPDES Permit
• Six Content Areas
–
–
–
–
Public Education/Involvement
Iliicit Connection
Pre and Post Construction
Good Housekeeping
• Submit Permit Applications-March,
2003
– Apply for Coverage Under General
Permit (in MT not available until
November 2004)
– Description of Storm Water
Management Program
• Fully Implement “Storm Water
Management Program within 5
Years