Date post: | 18-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | kelly-quinn-sands |
View: | 181 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Value of an Integrated
Planning Approach for
Euclid, Ohio
EPA Policy Evolution since 2011
“A comprehensive and integrated
planning approach to a municipal
government’s CWA waste- and
storm-water obligations offers the
greatest opportunity for identifying
cost-effective and protective
solutions and implementing the
most important projects first.”
“The OW and the OECA are
committed to working with
interested communities and water
resource managers to successfully
incorporate green infrastructure
into NPDES permits, as well as
remedies designed to address
non-compliance with the CWA, to
better manage both stormwater
runoff and sewer overflows.”
Attachment A
Recent (2011) Examples of
Enforcement Actions with Green
Infrastructure
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Kansas City, MO
Louisville, KY
EPA’s Integrated Planning Framework can
refine the program, saving $ and extending
the compliance timeline
• MBR Upgrades
• HeadworksUpgrade
Ongoing System
Improvements
•Cost Savings through regionalization
•Optimize CSO / SSO Controls
•Add Green Infrastructure
Integrated Planning
Regionalization
Affordability
•Optimized Storage
•Pro-Business GI and Economic Development projects
Refined Program
Pause Point Extend Compliance Schedule
Address Affordability Concerns
Initial Review of Euclid Consent Decree
and Wet Weather Plan
Euclid’s Control Levels are high and are not connected to
water quality standards
Program Affordability is not aligned with best practices to
protect Euclid ratepayers
Significant Schedule and Future Cost Risks of program
Ensuring Regional Buy-in with rising compliance costs
Ruling out Green Infrastructure (GI) is inconsistent with National
practice and EPA Policy
Euclid’s Control Levels are high and
cost/benefits not considered
CSO Activation limit of 4 per year arbitrary in context of water
quality benefits
Exceeds CSO Policy which allows 6 or more if benefits from fewer
activations cannot be cost justified
Unclear if Euclid using Presumptive or Demonstrative Approach –
this could impact potential alternatives and costs
No clear linkage of program investments to water quality benefits
Lake Erie TMDL evolving and would likely change plan emphasis
and costs
EPA Region 5 imposing “new” interpretation of CSO Policy
Program Affordability is not
aligned with best practices to
protect Euclid ratepayers
Cost escalation changes affordability
of the CD driven plans
Schedules and cash flow impacts
need to be more closely evaluated
Plant work, CSO work, SSO work being
forced to overlapping timelines
Huge cash flow needs in 2015-2018
creates unbalanced program
May cause unanticipated rate stress
and loss of customer support
At a minimum, Euclid needs more
time to comply
Cost Escalation - total program cost risk
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Sep-11 Mar-12 Oct-12 Actual
?
Consent Decree Issues and
Opportunities: Penalty Avoidance
Consent decree heavy on
penalty provisions for small
city
More than NEORSD and other large cities in some
cases
Euclid should be careful
with penalty liability if
dispute resolution needed
to get CD plan and schedule changes
STIP risks can be reduced
City STIPS – Maximum Daily
Penalty
Euclid, Ohio $4,000/day after 60 days
Chicago MWRD $5,000/day after 60 days
St. Louis $4,000/day after 60 days
Cleveland (NEORSD) $2,000/day after 30 days
DeKalb $3,000/day after 120 days
Honolulu $2,000/day after 60 days
Kansas City $4,000/day after 60 days
HRSD $3,000/day after 60 days
Nashville $5,000/day after 6 months
Louisville $5,000/day after 120 days
Baton Rouge $10,000/day after 60 days
EPA now assessing STIPS in some Regions
Rationale for considering an integrated
planning and program refinement phase
Save Money
Affordability picture has changed due to CSO/SSO and Separate
stormwater (MS4) issues need to be considered
CD requires overlapping CSO/SSO and Plant work
There is precedent - Other cities reopening CD negotiations based on
excessive costs and integrated planning opportunities
Integrated plan can assess schedule impacts and balanced approach
Adapting the program to enable Greener Communities; currently green
is at the back end of schedule, which does not help Euclid achieve
community improvements or benefits soon enough
Plan would address increasing public opposition to program costs and
clarify program benefits
Better program controls are necessary to enable more transparency in
terms of understanding of projects / budgets / value / status
Examples of Integrated and Adaptive
Wet-Weather Plans
Louisville, KY
Spokane, WA
Cincinnati, OH
Columbus, OH
Akron, OH
Lancaster, PA
Onondaga County, NY
Louisville, KY
Negotiated option to do integrated planning in multi phased CD
Allowed prioritization of competing CSO, SSO, and stormwater expenditures
over extended timeline ($800 million program)
Provided mechanism for substituting green projects if equal or better than
grey projects identified resulting in significant green projects and stronger
public support for rate increases
Has innovative incentives to maximize private green investments
Has resolved technical issues with EPA Region 4 to “measure” green project
performance and compare to grey projects
Spokane, WA
Integrated Clean Water Plan utilizing the USEPA’s
Integrated Planning Framework focused on the
City’s goal of achieving a cleaner Spokane River
faster
Developed of a CSO Plan Amendment that re-sized
CSO tanks and saved the City $120 million
Evaluated applicability and cost-effectiveness of
pollutant reduction approaches (in addition to
discharge reduction) including Green Infrastructure
Collaboration with Spokane area stakeholders and
the Washington State Department of Ecology was
essential for integrated planning success
Re-prioritized projects based on removal of
pollutants, meeting water quality requirements, and
on other objectives important to the residents of
Spokane including economic development and
aesthetics
“We spent a year re-evaluating
our work to reduce combined
sewer overflows and stormwater
runoff going to the Spokane
River, along with plans to
improve treatment at our
wastewater facility. We
identified a path forward that
would reduce the cost by about
$150 million and vastly improve
the health of the river.” - David
Condon, Mayor, Spokane, WA
Cincinnati, OH
Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) entered into CD in August, 2010
Multi-billion dollar program comprised of wet weather, capacity assurance, and asset management improvements
Negotiated the opportunity to conduct a 3-year study to develop and evaluate a cost competitive alternative to the default CD solution (tunnel)
Program incorporates integrated planning approaches to address Stormwater and wastewater issues while yielding enhanced economic, environmental, and social benefits for community
CH2M HILL professionals provided technical expertise to support MSDGC Office of the Director (OOD) in the development of a sustainablewatershed evaluation planning process (SWEPP) alignedwith the USEPA Integrated Planning Framework that wasofficially adopted in June 2012
St Francis bioinfiltration basin early success projectcompleted by MSDGC in Lick Run watershed
Columbus, OH
Proactively addressing their stormwater challenge as part of their SSO
mitigation
Have pilot program to implement GI to provide water quality treatment of
stormwater runoff in their sanitary sewer service area
This pilot program also includes private property rehabilitation of service
laterals, which are thought to be a significant source of I/I in the sanitary
sewer system
Columbus owes the EPA a report with monitoring and modeling based
findings on effectiveness and published cost effectiveness by September,
2015
Lancaster, PA
Integrated Plan that
provides the following
benefits:
Lower Life Cycle Cost
Community Impacts
(Triple Bottom Line)
CSO Volume Reductions
Water Quality
(Pollutant Load Reduction)
Flood Risk Reduction
“The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate
how accounting for the multiple benefits of
green infrastructure can provide a more
complete assessment of infrastructure and
community investments” US EPA
“CH2M HILL has been a tremendous partner throughout the development and implementation of our regulatory compliance
program for an update to our long term control plan and MS4 programs and helping us meet our goals for the TMDL. We have great local resources from the firm and we have also benefitted
from their global reach and experience.”
Charlotte Katzenmoyer, Director of Public Works, City of Lancaster, PA
Onondaga County, NY
Consent Judgment was agreed to clean up “America’s most polluted lake” – but stakeholders were not satisfied with the stipulated approach
Prolonged public opposition increased cost and delayed implementation
New County Executive leadership convinced Judge to consider Greener, Balanced approach; given 1 year pause to develop new control plan
Revised program moves Green Infrastructure to front of program, implements a smarter gray program, Extended compliance schedule by 5 years
Saving over $20M+ in capital cost while reducing life cycle costs even more; improves other community assets immediately (roads, parking lots, roofing systems, vacant lots, parks, schools)
Community sees the benefits to the lake, tributaries, and public assets; able to appreciate why their sewer rates have increased
Euclid, Ohio
Next: Two - Step Revision Strategy
1. Develop consensus to proceed with a review and
update process
Work with City staff and legal counsel to identify benefits of
a refinement phase and integrated plan
2. Develop a road map
Build technical, regulatory, and financial case to support
plan revision
Build team (internal staff and external consultants)
Develop strategy to negotiate and implement a revised
consent order and wet-weather plan
Integrated Plan Roadmap
Affordability analysis / FCA requires more sophistication
Review current investments being implemented at this time, specifically
those at the treatment facility/equalization storage
Identify the gap remaining to satisfy all existing and imminent regulatory
requirements (point and non-point sources, MS4, TMDL, and others)
Integrate GI solutions with existing/proposed gray infrastructure, as well as
identify where proposed gray infrastructure may be replaced with
equivalent green options
Better utilization of planning tools such as geographic information systems
(GIS) and stormwater management model (SWMM)
Evaluate CSO/SSO capture assumptions based on national experience
Utilize modeling tools and the monitoring data effectively to support revised
program and build consensus with regulators and stakeholders
Prioritize community opportunities/impacts
Questions ?
Onondaga County, NYOriginal Consent Order planned to build four (4)
Regional Treatment Facilities (RTFs)
in neighborhoods and business districts
(1 of the 4 was built costing $79.1 million;
significantly over budget)
RTFs required large
conveyance
pipelines with
significant
community disruption
(over budget and
behind schedule)
Initial Projects Opposed by
Community Residents and Businesses
Onondaga County, NY ~ Balanced Approach
Syracuse becomes
one of first ten EPA
Green Cities
County Executive Mahoney Announces “Project 50!”
“Onondaga County will construct fifty distinct green
infrastructure projects to return rain water and snow
melt to the ground instead of our sewer system.”Joanne M. Mahoney, State of the County Address,
March 1, 2011
Onondaga County, NYOver 165 projects completed100,000,000 gallons of runoff reduction
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to County Facilities
OnCenter Convention Center
66,000 Square Foot Green Roof
New 30 year roof installed under CSO program;
study underway quantifying heating and cooling
benefits in addition to runoff reduction
Before
Onondaga County, NYGreen Streets Installed Adjacent To No-Standing Lanes
Add Aesthetic Value Without Impacting Traffic or Pedestrians
BEFORE: Stormwater enters catch
basins and is directly connected to
sewer
PROPOSED (Photo Simulation):
Stormwater is diverted to Green
Streets and only overflows to
sewer when necessary
AFTER (Actual Photo): Project
has been adopted* by local
business to pick up litter, weed,
and mulch (provided by County)
Adopt-A-GI Project program was created based on common Adopt-A-Highway format
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to County Facilities
OnCenter Convention Center
290 Parking Space Surface Lot(porous asphalt perimeter with subsurface
storage and infiltration system)
Lot had many potholes and significant cracking; resurfacing
paid for through CSO program. Improved safety through
smarter layout, LED lighting, as well as electric vehicle
charging station (separate funding source)
Before
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to County Facilities
Surface Parking Lot next to
Everson Art MuseumPreviously a puddle-ridden gravel lot, new
standard asphalt pavement drains to Bio-
retention designed to store, slowly infiltrate,
and provide evapotranspiration of runoff
due to poorly draining soils; large storm
events overflow to sewer
Vegetated
Bio-retention
System, including
90 new Trees
Before
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to City Streets
Award
Winning
Water Street
Green
Gateway
Project
Completely new City Street (City paid for asphalt mill and
paving, County program paid for all other work)
Before
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to City Streets – Typical Residential
Stone
Trench
New City Street
Storage and Infiltration Trench no longer visible
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to City Streets
Otisco Street
Residential Green Street
with Bioswale
• New Curbs, asphalt,
and sidewalks
• Traffic Calming
(Bump Outs)
• Added green space
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to City Commercial Districts
Westcott Street Commercial District
• New Curbs, Sidewalks, and Asphalt
• Improved Pedestrian Experience
Before
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to City Streets
West Onondaga Street
Commercial District
Before
Onondaga County, NYBenefits to City Streets
West Onondaga Street
Commercial District
• New Curbs, Sidewalk, Asphalt
• Improved Traffic Pattern
• Added Green Spaces Before
Onondaga County, NYAddressing the Vacant Lot Challenge
701 Oswego
Street Vacant
Lot Project
The CSO Abatement Program has utilized
multiple vacant lots in the City to manage
stormwater runoff while investing in new curbs,
sidewalks, and putting these properties to
beneficial use as nurseries and gardens
Before
Onondaga County, NYUtilizing Park Space
Leavenworth Park Bio-infiltration SystemProject included new roadside granite curbs and
carriage walk; plantings compliment park setting
(County program has also resurfaced basketball courts,
parking lots, and supported other park amenities)
Spring
Summer Bloom
Onondaga County Green Improvement FundA Public Private Partnership Grant Program
Incentivizing GI on Private Property 130 Applications Submitted (Mar 2014) 59 Projects Completed
(27 in 2013) 25 million gallons of
Stormwater Runoff capturedfor $6.1 million
21.5 million more gallons contracted Average rate = $0.25/gal for program
The County also has a program that has distributed over 1,000 free Rain Barrels, and has planted over 2,500 street trees (8,500 planned)
Monroe Building
Green Roof