Anchorage’s 2011 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Annual Meeting Anchorage Anchorage ’ ’ s 2011 s 2011 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Annual Meeting Annual Meeting APDES MS4 Permit #AKS APDES MS4 Permit #AKS - - 052558 052558 Storm Water Management Program March 22, 2011 March 22, 2011
74
Embed
Anchorage Anchorage’s 2011 Municipal Separate Storm …...2011 ANNUAL MEETING . Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Storm Water Permit 2011 ANNUAL MEETING . 2011
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Anchorage’s 2011 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
Annual Meeting
AnchorageAnchorage’’s 2011s 2011 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
Annual MeetingAnnual Meeting
APDES MS4 Permit #AKSAPDES MS4 Permit #AKS--052558052558Storm Water Management Program March 22, 2011March 22, 2011
2011 ANNUAL MEETING Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(APDES) Storm Water Permit
2011 ANNUAL MEETING2011 ANNUAL MEETING Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(APDES) Storm Water Permit(APDES) Storm Water Permit
WELCOME
Jerry HansenPM&E Deputy Director
AGENDAOpening Remarks
9:30a Basic Permit Program ElementsBreak
10:30 Watershed Permit Program Elements11:15 Discussion Forums
WELCOMEWELCOME
Jerry HansenJerry HansenPM&E Deputy DirectorPM&E Deputy Director
AGENDAAGENDAOpening RemarksOpening Remarks
9:30a9:30a Basic Permit Program ElementsBasic Permit Program ElementsBreakBreak
10:3010:30 Watershed Permit Program ElementsWatershed Permit Program Elements11:1511:15 Discussion ForumsDiscussion Forums
2011 PUBLIC MEETING Anchorage APDES Storm Water Permit
2011 PUBLIC MEETING2011 PUBLIC MEETING Anchorage APDES Storm Water PermitAnchorage APDES Storm Water Permit
OPENING REMARKSOPENING REMARKSOPENING REMARKS
Ron Thompson, P.E.MOA Public Works DirectorRon Thompson, P.E.Ron Thompson, P.E.MOA Public Works DirectorMOA Public Works Director
William Ashton, P.E.Alaska Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
William Ashton, P.E.William Ashton, P.E.Alaska Dept. of Alaska Dept. of
Kim Rice, P.E.Kim Rice, P.E.ADOT&PFADOT&PF, , EngineerEngineer
Agenda: 2011 Public Meeting Anchorage APDES Storm Water Permit
Agenda: 2011 Public MeetingAgenda: 2011 Public Meeting Anchorage APDES Storm Water PermitAnchorage APDES Storm Water Permit
9a Welcome
Opening Remarks
9:30 Basic Storm Water Management ProgramConstruction and Discharge PermittingPollution Control and MS4 MaintenanceMonitoring
10:15 Break
10:30 Watershed Approach Storm Water Management ProgramWatershed PlanningWatershed-Based Design StandardsLow Impact Development Pilot Projects in Road ProjectsLow Impact Development in the Community - Rain Gardens
11:15 Watershed Management, Problems & OpportunitiesProfessional Response to ‘Leave It to Maintenance”:
a panel discussion
9a9a WelcomeWelcome
Opening RemarksOpening Remarks
9:309:30 Basic Storm Water Management ProgramBasic Storm Water Management ProgramConstruction and Discharge PermittingConstruction and Discharge PermittingPollution Control and MS4 MaintenancePollution Control and MS4 MaintenanceMonitoringMonitoring
10:1510:15 BreakBreak
10:30 10:30 Watershed Approach Storm Water Management ProgramWatershed Approach Storm Water Management ProgramWatershed PlanningWatershed PlanningWatershedWatershed--Based Design StandardsBased Design StandardsLow Impact Development Pilot Projects in Road ProjectsLow Impact Development Pilot Projects in Road ProjectsLow Impact Development in the Community Low Impact Development in the Community -- Rain GardensRain Gardens
11:1511:15 Watershed Management, Problems & OpportunitiesWatershed Management, Problems & OpportunitiesProfessional Response to Professional Response to ‘‘Leave It to MaintenanceLeave It to Maintenance””: :
a panel discussiona panel discussion
•Stormwater defined as a “point source” of discharge to waters of the U.S.
•Stormwater discharges require an NPDES/APDES Permit
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)Industrial, by sector (MSGP), including
construction (CGP)
Clean Water Act
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System – MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Sewer System –– MS4MS4
Allow permittees to discharge stormwater to waters of the U.S.
Discharges must be treated to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Framework – Monitoring and Reporting
Allow permittees to discharge stormwater Allow permittees to discharge stormwater to waters of the U.S.to waters of the U.S.
Discharges must be treated to the Discharges must be treated to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) FrameworkFramework–– Monitoring and ReportingMonitoring and Reporting
– Performed assessments of deicing agents, street sanding and sweeping practices, snow disposal activities
– Instigated plan reviews and construction inspection and provided training
– Conducted in-stream monitoring
First term permit effective in 1999 for 5 First term permit effective in 1999 for 5 yearsyears
–– Performed assessments of deicing agents, Performed assessments of deicing agents, street sanding and sweeping practices, snow street sanding and sweeping practices, snow disposal activitiesdisposal activities
–– Instigated plan reviews and construction Instigated plan reviews and construction inspection and provided traininginspection and provided training
Stormwater Management PlanStormwater Management PlanStormwater Management Plan
1. Construction2. New and Redevelopment 3. Industrial and Commercial
Stormwater Discharge Management 4. Storm Water Infrastructure and
Street Maintenance 5. Illicit Discharge Management6. Public Education and Involvement7. Monitoring
1.1. ConstructionConstruction2.2. New and Redevelopment New and Redevelopment 3.3. Industrial and Commercial Industrial and Commercial
Stormwater Discharge ManagementStormwater Discharge Management4.4. Storm Water Infrastructure and Storm Water Infrastructure and
Street MaintenanceStreet Maintenance5.5. Illicit Discharge ManagementIllicit Discharge Management6.6. Public Education and InvolvementPublic Education and Involvement7.7. MonitoringMonitoring
Anchorage SWMPAnchorage SWMPAnchorage SWMP
ConstructionUtilities and public projectsSensitive sitesMonthly inspectionStorm drain As-Builts
2011 Construction General PermitEffluent Limitation Guidelines
ConstructionConstructionUtilities and public projectsUtilities and public projectsSensitive sitesSensitive sitesMonthly inspectionMonthly inspectionStorm drain AsStorm drain As--BuiltsBuilts
2011 Construction General Permit2011 Construction General PermitEffluent Limitation GuidelinesEffluent Limitation Guidelines
Construction – New ServiceConstruction – New Service
Utility Projects
– Intake of Application and Issuance of Permit<1 acre – due 7 days before starting work
– Permit issued based on complete application
>1 acre – due 10 days before starting work– Permit will be emailed
Utility Projects
– Intake of Application and Issuance of Permit<1 acre – due 7 days before starting work
– Permit issued based on complete application
>1 acre – due 10 days before starting work– Permit will be emailed
Construction – New CriteriaConstruction – New Criteria
Threat to water quality - AG.21, Checklist #3– Any site within 200 feet of a wetland or waterbody– Any project 5 acres or greater of disturbance
Threat assessment based on:– Size– Slope– Non-storm water discharge potential– Past record of non-compliance– Proximity to wetland or waterbody
Threat to water quality - AG.21, Checklist #3– Any site within 200 feet of a wetland or waterbody– Any project 5 acres or greater of disturbance
Threat assessment based on:– Size– Slope– Non-storm water discharge potential– Past record of non-compliance– Proximity to wetland or waterbody
Inspection ScheduleInspection Schedule
5 acres or greater monthly
10,000 sf and significant threat
monthly
10,000 sf or more, and less than 5 acres
Once per season
Less than 10,000 sf Once per season
Permanent Controls and Stabilization, As-builts
End of Job for Certificate of Occupancy
Anchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 Program
Stormwater Infrastructure and Street Maintenance Stormwater Infrastructure Stormwater Infrastructure and Street Maintenanceand Street Maintenance
Watershed Plans– Little Campbell Creek– Chester Creek
New and Re- DevelopmentImplementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development – Design Criteria– Pilot Projects– Rain Gardens
Watershed ApproachWatershed ApproachWatershed PlansWatershed Plans–– Little Campbell CreekLittle Campbell Creek–– Chester CreekChester Creek
New and ReNew and Re-- DevelopmentDevelopmentImplementation of Green Infrastructure and Implementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact DevelopmentLow Impact Development–– Design CriteriaDesign Criteria–– Pilot ProjectsPilot Projects–– Rain GardensRain Gardens
Anchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 Program
New and Re- DevelopmentImplementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development – Design Criteria– Pilot Projects– Rain Gardens
New and ReNew and Re-- DevelopmentDevelopmentImplementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Implementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact DevelopmentImpact Development–– Design CriteriaDesign Criteria–– Pilot ProjectsPilot Projects–– Rain GardensRain Gardens
Stormwater Criteria Manual Update Agenda
March 22, 2011Bradley M. Melocik, P.E., P.H.
Richard D. Pribyl, E.I.
Project Purpose
Project Team
New MS4 Permit
Requirements
Existing Manuals
Proposed Manuals
Progress & Schedule
Stormwater Criteria Manual Update Project Purpose
Satisfy MS4 Permit Requirements
APDES – MS4 effective Feb 1, 2010
Update the MOA’s stormwater criteria
Develop useable, comprehensive technical
criteria manuals
Combine existing manuals with design review
process
Stormwater Criteria Manual Update Project Team
MOA
Kristi Bischofberger (lead for bi‐weekly MOA meetings)
Anchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 Program
New and Re- DevelopmentImplementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development – Design Criteria– Pilot Projects– Rain Gardens
New and ReNew and Re-- DevelopmentDevelopmentImplementation of Green Infrastructure Implementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Developmentand Low Impact Development–– Design CriteriaDesign Criteria–– Pilot ProjectsPilot Projects–– Rain GardensRain Gardens
• Bioswales• Rain Gardens• Sedimentation Basins• Using Natural Drainage Features in Design• Obtaining Excess ROW for Constructing
Retention Ponds
Design Elements
3/30/2011 58Alaska DOT&PF
West Dowling Road Phase I
Seward Highway – Tudor to Dowling
Anchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 Program
New and Re- DevelopmentImplementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development – Design Criteria– Pilot Projects– Rain Gardens
New and ReNew and Re-- DevelopmentDevelopmentImplementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Implementation of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact DevelopmentImpact Development–– Design CriteriaDesign Criteria–– Pilot ProjectsPilot Projects–– Rain GardensRain Gardens
Rain Gardens in our CommunityRain Gardens in our Community
Distribution of Rain GardensDistribution of Rain Gardens
Evaluation/Comment FormEvaluation/Comment FormEvaluation/Comment Form
The panel discussion will take place during the second half of the APDES Annual Meeting tomorrow. I will give a brief introduction to the panel discussion topic and then open the floor for each of you to introduce yourselves and the perspective you represent on the panel (~2 minutes). We will then work our way through the questions below. After we have discussed our questions we will open the discussion to questions from the audience. If there are questions you feel less strongly about, feel free to answer more brief than your two minutes to save time for other responses where you might have more you’d like to convey. Questions: The first question we ask ourselves when it comes to stormwater control devices is what works? With new regulations we are asking for more retention of stormwater on site. This can be attained through multiple avenues; the one we are asking to see applied to the Maximum Extent Possible is Low Impact Development.
Question #1: How can Low Impact Development work for Anchorage, Alaska? How can we achieve the new retention requirements through traditional and Low Impact Development techniques?
Our second question is on the topic of maintenance accountability. Question #2: For a given vegetative or structural stormwater control with a recommended maintenance schedule, who is the proper entity to be responsible for maintenance of the control for the long term?
Our third question is on the topic of cost and cost effective planning. Question #3: How can we design stormwater controls to meet treatment and flow requirements with both the initial construction budget and long-term operation & maintenance budget in mind? *Is LID more or less expensive? *Should long term or short term budgets take precedence? We have a possible follow up question regarding maintenance budgets. Question #3A: Should there be an annual maintenance cost threshold? For example, could we use a formula to calculate an acceptable maintenance budget? This might be a tool for designers and budget managers to estimate an annual maintenance threshold.
Our final question is on the topic of evolving regulations and development status quo. Title 21, MASS and the Design Criteria Manual dictate standards for landscaping, pipe sizing and parking lots that often put a stop gate to many of the opportunities we have to implement Low Impact Development.
Question #4: How can Low Impact Development co-exist with traditional development techniques? When safe and site appropriate, should LID be allowed to replace traditional techniques to meet stormwater requirements? How do we find common ground?
Municipality of Anchorage and
We appreciate your comments on this Annual Meeting geared towards building a better stormwater program.
the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Faculties
2011 APDES Annual Meeting March 22, 2011 For APDES MS4 Permit AKS-052558
Program Evaluation Form
Thank you for taking a few minutes to provide us with your feedback. Your comments about today’s
program will help us make next year’s session better. Please complete this form and put it in the Program Evaluation Forms box at the sign-in table.
1. How would you rate this meeting overall?
Poor Excellent 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 19 5 number of responses 2. What did you like about this meeting? Not much * panel Q&A * update on new happenings * knowledgeable speakers * kept on time and moving * panel discussion went well * addresses/up-dates activities of watershed management * all was great * panel Q&A session was good * well organized * good information – I liked panel and feedback that followed * brief presentations, varied speakers, good meeting place, interesting panel discussion * informative update about new rules and regs * appreciate updates to MS4 * like the panel discussion * good presentation – especially liked Scott’s talk on grit use and sweeping * informative * efficient and well organized * learned a lot about MOA/DOT efforts and relationship * bringing the various aspects of the permit together rather than being in isolation – good information * very informative * good diversity of topics and detail * educational * good overview information by knowledgeable presenters * good panel * well put together and a good representation of different groups * great diversity of topics * presenters were passionate and kept it interesting * well organized – Kristi did a great job presenting and hosting * panel discussion was good * I liked the variety of perspectives presented * open discussions * good mix of topics – different presenters made it interesting
3. What did you not like about this meeting? Please tell us why. Talked about construction but no plans for maintenance * not enough background on why meeting is held * like more of voice regarding private development incentives and compliance * specifics regarding implementation costs * how staff will maintain & afford drainage * microphones * please-everyone use the microphone * would be ice to see more people from design construction community and hear some of their input * nothing * sound system only bummer * sound system always seems to have problems – fortunately the speakers had good voices * I wanted more info on the public ed part, not just one fold out desk display, also not just an executive summary of a survey * inconsistent sound system * assumption that everyone knew acronyms and background. – saw several confused faces * no decision-maker (Assembly) was here to hear * no time to ask questions after various talks * more visual aid * more project implemented/lessons learned
4. If you were planning an annual meeting like this, what would you do differently? Focus on how to up-keep facilities * have a 5 minute intro and handout packet with basic background information * more private sector and current administration perspective * take a pre-meeting survey of concerns to address to the group * round table forum * city and state leaders need to attend and help - contribute budget for LIDs * put a landscape architect on the panel * solicit more input from private developers and non-regulatory community * add some graphic examples – past projects etc. * have street maintenance more upfront about the maint. Cost of keeping rain gardens functional after now season is over * great updates, good resources, like forum to discuss, with questions, varying perspectives * attempt to better understand and estimate the understanding of audience * quickly go around audience to see who is here * extend panel time * more audience participation * not much – meeting put together very well * need contacts for all speakers – post with slides * better agenda for panel discussion/open discussion * do it in summer * show successes of projects and why professionals should be innovative in these projects * provide data/information showing how the WMP has resulted in improvements or saved money for Anchorage
5. Do you have specific comments about the following aspects of the meeting program? Program agenda Good job * to the point * good * good * good * excellent Permit overview Need private development (cost-based) view on permit * need specific citations of federal and state laws * more ino on enforcement/consequence of non-compliance * fine * understandable * good * need some more explanation of acronyms * good * very good overview
We appreciate your comments on this Annual Meeting geared towards building a better stormwater program.
Permit perspectives Good * good * good * give what is coming up in the future * good variation of topics – well versed
Meeting location and services Great * excellent * good * excellent * thank you * good * great * good * very nice * great * good location and catering
Number of speakers Fine * good * good * enough to keep program interesting * good * fine * seemed about right * kept program interesting with multiple presenters
6. Any other suggestions or comments? Handouts would be nice * more audience interaction * when will upper mgmt. take action & fund these increased efforts * well done * I was surprised how good the panel discussion was – didn’t know there was a disconnect between title 21 and the design manual – have workshop to resolve * loved Scott Wheaton’s presentation * close upper blinds so slides show better * genera questions * more audience participation * could be time to focus more on LID application in Anchorage’s sub-Arctic setting with frost-depths approaching 11-12 foot depths * need defined what changes in maintenance needs as we add more green infrastructure and landscape maintenance * nice job *