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

Environmental ConservationEnvironmental Conservation

Kim Rice, P.E.ADOT&PF, Engineer

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

Anchorage’s MS4 permitAnchorageAnchorage’’s MS4 permits MS4 permit

First term permit effective in 1999 for 5 years

– 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

–– Conducted inConducted in--stream monitoringstream monitoring

Anchorage’s MS4 permitAnchorageAnchorage’’s MS4 permits MS4 permit

Second term permit effective February 1, 2010

– Implement EPA Goals of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development

– Implement TMDL allocation and ELG controls

– Escalate Enforcement for Construction and Illicit Discharges

– Conduct end-of-pipe monitoring

– Assess Performance

Second term permit effective February 1, 2010Second term permit effective February 1, 2010

–– Implement EPA Goals of Green Infrastructure and Implement EPA Goals of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact DevelopmentLow Impact Development

–– Implement TMDL allocation and ELG controls Implement TMDL allocation and ELG controls

–– Escalate Enforcement for Construction and Illicit Escalate Enforcement for Construction and Illicit DischargesDischarges

–– Conduct endConduct end--ofof--pipe monitoringpipe monitoring

–– Assess PerformanceAssess PerformanceTMDL = total maximum daily load, ELG = effluent limitation guideTMDL = total maximum daily load, ELG = effluent limitation guidelineslines

Anchorage’s MS4 PermitAnchorageAnchorage’’s MS4 Permits MS4 Permit

Inter-jurisdictional Agreement

Co-Permittee Roles/Responsibilities

Coordination Agreements

Communication

Responsibilities

Partners

InterInter--jurisdictional Agreementjurisdictional Agreement

CoCo--Permittee Roles/ResponsibilitiesPermittee Roles/Responsibilities

Coordination AgreementsCoordination Agreements

CommunicationCommunication

ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities

PartnersPartners

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

Sediment Control on theAnchorage MS4

Sediment Control on theAnchorage MS4

MS4MS4

Waters of USWaters of US

Keep

APDES (NPDES) View ofPollutant Control

From Entering

Pollutants

MS4MS4

ConstructionConstruction

Snow StorageSnow Storage

Winter SandingWinter Sanding

Anc

hora

ge M

S4 S

edim

ent

SOU

RC

ESA

ncho

rage

MS4

Sed

imen

tA

ncho

rage

MS4

Sed

imen

tSO

UR

CES

SOU

RC

ES

Winter SandingWinter SandingWinter SandingWinter Sanding

Max Daily TempLess Than 0oC

Max Daily TempMax Daily TempLess Than 0Less Than 0ooCC

Max Daily TempLess Than 0oC

Max Daily TempMax Daily TempLess Than 0Less Than 0ooCC

Max Daily TempGreater Than 0oCMax Daily TempMax Daily Temp

Greater Than 0Greater Than 0ooCC

Sept Nov Dec Feb Mar May

70 N Lat. (Barrow)60 N Lat. (Anchorage)

50 N Lat. (Winnipeg)40 N Lat. (Denver)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Month

Sola

r R

adia

tion

(kilo

joul

e/sq

uare

met

er)

Reference: Johnson, et.al, 1971.

Low AngleWinter Sun Means…

Low AngleLow AngleWinter Sun MeansWinter Sun Means……

Salt Doesn’t Work andNothing Thaws Till SpringSalt DoesnSalt Doesn’’t Work andt Work andNothing Thaws Till SpringNothing Thaws Till Spring

MidMid--Winter Mean Anchorage TemperatureWinter Mean Anchorage Temperature

…Little Insolation HeatAnd low Average Temperatures.

……Little Insolation HeatLittle Insolation HeatAnd low And low AverageAverage Temperatures.Temperatures.

TudorTudor

DebarrDebarr

Bon

ifac

eB

onif

ace

Lake

Oti

sLa

ke O

tis

Mul

doon

Mul

doon

New

Sew

ard

New

Sew

ard

Mtn. View Drive

Mtn. View Drive

Anchorage MS4 -- 1950Anchorage MS4 Anchorage MS4 ---- 19501950Curb & Gutter - 0%Open Channel - 100%Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter -- 0%0%Open Channel Open Channel -- 100%100%

TudorTudor

DebarrDebarr

Bon

ifac

eB

onif

ace

Lake

Oti

sLa

ke O

tis

Mul

doon

Mul

doon

New

Sew

ard

New

Sew

ard

Mtn. View Drive

Mtn. View DriveMAINTAINED STREET MILES

C/L mi. Curb/Kick mi.DOT (151 mi.)

Arterial 93.4 185.6Ditched 29.4 62.4C&G 64.0 123.2

Residential 57.7 122.5Ditched 38.9 86.6C&G 18.8 35.9

MOA ARDSA (618 mi.)Arterial 40.8 131.8

Ditched 0 0C&G 40.8 131.8

Residential 577.2 +835.4Ditched 112.5 --C&G 464.7 835.4

MOA CBERRRSA (194 mi.)Residential 194 92.9

Ditched 167.8 40.0C&G 26.4 52.9

MAINTAINED STREET MILESMAINTAINED STREET MILESC/L mi.C/L mi. Curb/Kick mi.Curb/Kick mi.

DOT (151 mi.)DOT (151 mi.)Arterial 93.4 185.6

Ditched 29.4 62.4C&G 64.0 123.2

Residential 57.7 122.5Ditched 38.9 86.6C&G 18.8 35.9

MOA ARDSA (618 mi.)MOA ARDSA (618 mi.)Arterial 40.8 131.8

Ditched 0 0C&G 40.8 131.8

Residential 577.2 +835.4Ditched 112.5 --C&G 464.7 835.4

MOA CBERRRSA (194 mi.)MOA CBERRRSA (194 mi.)Residential 194 92.9

Ditched 167.8 40.0C&G 26.4 52.9

MS4 in 2011MS4 in 2011MS4 in 2011

…and MANY more Street miles.

…and MANY more Street miles.

Curb & Gutter - 90%Open Channel - 10%Curb & Gutter Curb & Gutter -- 90%90%Open Channel Open Channel -- 10%10%

Winter Street Sanding:Is the BIGGEST

MS4 Sediment Source…

Winter Street Sanding:Winter Street Sanding:Is the BIGGESTIs the BIGGEST

MS4 Sediment SourceMS4 Sediment Source……

2011 WINTER SANDINGDOT 33,000 tonsMOA ARDSA 9,000 tonsMOA CBERRRSA 9,500 tons

2011 WINTER SANDING2011 WINTER SANDINGDOT DOT 33,000 tons33,000 tonsMOA ARDSA MOA ARDSA 9,000 tons9,000 tonsMOA CBERRRSA 9,500 tonsMOA CBERRRSA 9,500 tons

2011 WINTER SALT USEDOT 2,800 tons NaCl (1500 tons Cl-)MOA ARDSA 17,600 gal MgCl2 ( 16 tons Cl-)MOA CBERRRSA 550 tons NaCl ( 295 tons Cl-)

6,900 gal MgCl2 ( 10 tons Cl-)

2011 WINTER SALT USE2011 WINTER SALT USEDOT DOT 2,800 tons NaCl (1500 tons Cl2,800 tons NaCl (1500 tons Cl--))MOA ARDSA MOA ARDSA 17,600 gal MgCl17,600 gal MgCl2 2 ( 16 tons Cl( 16 tons Cl--))MOA CBERRRSA 550 tons NaCl ( 295 tons ClMOA CBERRRSA 550 tons NaCl ( 295 tons Cl--))

6,900 gal MgCl6,900 gal MgCl2 2 ( 10 tons Cl( 10 tons Cl--))

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Salt,

SI T

ons

Det

roit,

MI

Buf

falo

, NY

Syr

acus

e, N

Y

Cle

vela

nd, O

H

Toro

nto,

ON

T

Milw

auke

e, W

I

Dul

uth,

MN

Edm

onto

n, A

LB

Anc

hora

ge, A

K

Metropolitan Area

Winter Highway Salt Useafter Novotny, et al, 1998

..While Anchorage Deicer Use Is Small And Focused…

..While Anchorage Deicer Use Is Small And Focused…

Sept Nov Dec Feb Mar May

70 N Lat. (Barrow)60 N Lat. (Anchorage)

50 N Lat. (Winnipeg)40 N Lat. (Denver)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Month

Sol

ar R

adia

tion

(kilo

joul

e/sq

uare

met

er)

Reference: Johnson, et.al, 1971.

Street Sediment LoadsSelected U.S. Cities

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

100

200

300

400

500

East Helena, MT (S)Tulsa, OK (S)Libby, MT (W)Baltimore, MD (W)Butte, MT (W)East Helena, MT (W)

810

ROAD TYPE

Uni

t Loa

d g

m/m

2 MOAWINTER

MOASUMMER

Low ADT High ADT

..and Anchorage Street Sediments Accumulate All Winter.

..and Anchorage Street Sediments Accumulate All Winter.

(~62,000 lbs/curb mi.)((~62,000 lbs/curb mi.)~62,000 lbs/curb mi.)

(~13,300 lbs/curb mi.)((~13,300 lbs/curb mi.)~13,300 lbs/curb mi.)

(MOA data from 2000(MOA data from 2000--03 WMS vacuum street sampling)03 WMS vacuum street sampling)

(~20,400 lbs/curb mi.)((~20,400 lbs/curb mi.)~20,400 lbs/curb mi.)

(~39,700 lbs/curb mi.)((~39,700 lbs/curb mi.)~39,700 lbs/curb mi.)

ArterialArterialArterialResidential/CollectorResidential/CollectorResidential/Collector

(~5,500 lbs/curb mi.)((~5,500 lbs/curb mi.)~5,500 lbs/curb mi.)(~3,500 lbs/curb mi.)((~3,500 lbs/curb mi.)~3,500 lbs/curb mi.)

20102010--11 ANCHORAGE MS411 ANCHORAGE MS4

prepre--Spring SweepSpring Sweeplbs/curb milelbs/curb mile

ArterialArterialDitchedDitched 600 600 –– 77,000 77,000 Curb&GutterCurb&Gutter 32,000 32,000 –– 118,000118,000

CollectorCollectorDitchedDitched 29,000 29,000 –– 40,00040,000Curb&GutterCurb&Gutter 16,000 16,000 –– 62,00062,000

ResidentialResidentialDitchedDitched 13,000 13,000 –– 43,00043,000Curb&GutterCurb&Gutter 23,000 23,000 –– 59,00059,000

Anchorage MS4 Winter 2010-11 Street Sediment Load

Anchorage MS4 Winter 2010-11 Street Sediment Load

Season Residential(light traffic)

Arterial (high traffic)

Public Parking Lots

15 April – 1 June

1 tandem 2 tandem 1 vacuum

15 June – 1 Aug

1 tandem 1 tandem --

15 Aug – 15 Oct

-- -- 1 vacuum

1 Sept – 15 Oct

1 tandem 1 tandem --

Anchorage MS4 Street Sweeping Requirements

Anchorage MS4 Street Sweeping Requirements

= Tandem= Tandem= Tandem+++

**

**

2011 Street Sweeping Results(lbs/curb mi.)

Spring Summer FallDOT (151 mi.)

ArterialDitched 27,300 15,000 9,000C&G 133,100 12,000 18,600

ResidentialDitched 30,300 5,000 6,300C&G 26,700 3,700 8,700

MOA ARDSA (618 mi.)Arterial

DitchedC&G 83,200 11,700 9,700

ResidentialDitched 2,400 1,400 4,700C&G 25,000 9,700 11,000

MOA CBERRRSA (194 mi.)Residential

Ditched 6,300 1,400 1,400C&G 17,300 1,400 3,400

2011 Street Sweeping Results2011 Street Sweeping Results(lbs/curb mi.)(lbs/curb mi.)

Spring Summer FallSpring Summer FallDOT (151 mi.)DOT (151 mi.)Arterial

Ditched 27,300 15,000 9,000C&G 133,100 12,000 18,600

ResidentialDitched 30,300 5,000 6,300C&G 26,700 3,700 8,700

MOA ARDSA (618 mi.)MOA ARDSA (618 mi.)Arterial

DitchedC&G 83,200 11,700 9,700

ResidentialDitched 2,400 1,400 4,700C&G 25,000 9,700 11,000

MOA CBERRRSA (194 mi.)MOA CBERRRSA (194 mi.)Residential

Ditched 6,300 1,400 1,400C&G 17,300 1,400 3,400

prepre--Spring SweepSpring Sweeplbs/curb milelbs/curb mile

ArterialArterialDitchedDitched 600 600 –– 77,000 77,000 Curb&Gutter 32,000 Curb&Gutter 32,000 –– 118,000118,000

CollectorCollectorDitchedDitched 29,000 29,000 –– 40,00040,000Curb&Gutter 16,000 Curb&Gutter 16,000 –– 62,00062,000

ResidentialResidentialDitchedDitched 13,000 13,000 –– 43,00043,000Curb&Gutter 23,000 Curb&Gutter 23,000 –– 59,00059,000

2011 Street Sweeping

2011 Street Sweeping

Particle Size Distribution2010 Swept Material

0

25

50

75

100

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.05 12

.79.5

25 4.75 2

0.422

0.251

0.152

0.104

0.075

Particle Size (mm)

Perc

ent P

assi

ng (%

)

ASD Dimond HSASD Chugiak HSCBERRRSA Art/ColCBERRRSA Res C&GCBERRRSA Res OCARDSA Art/ColARDSA ResDOT ArtDOT Col

Anchorage MS4 2011 PSD Swept Street Sediments

Anchorage MS4 2011 PSD Swept Street Sediments

ARDSA ARDSA SpecSpec

DOTDOTSpecSpec

2011 Anchorage MS4 2011 Anchorage MS4 SAND SHEDSSAND SHEDS

In In ConstructIn In ConstructPlace Design SchedulePlace Design Schedule

AkDOTAkDOTBirchwoodBirchwood √√

20112011AnchorageAnchorage √√

20112011GirdwoodGirdwood √√

20112011

MOA ARDSAMOA ARDSAAnchorageAnchorage √√

20052005

MOA CBERRRSAMOA CBERRRSAHilandHiland √√

20112011South ForkSouth Fork √√

20122012

Sand ShedsSand Sheds

Other Controls Street Sediments

Other Controls Street Sediments

MOA ARDSA Sand Shed Constructed 2006

MOA ARDSA Sand Shed Constructed 2006

BenefitsBenefitsReduce salt environmental releaseReduce salt environmental releaseReduce infrastructure corrosionReduce infrastructure corrosionReduce vehicle/equipment corrosionReduce vehicle/equipment corrosionMore efficient operationsMore efficient operations

Hoo Ha! Cool!Hoo Ha! Cool!

2011 ANCHORAGE MS42011 ANCHORAGE MS4

Catch BasinsCatch BasinsInspect/Clean #sInspect/Clean #s

AkDOTAkDOTInspect Inspect 30003000CleanClean 12301230

MOA ARDSAMOA ARDSAInspectInspect OngoingOngoingCleanClean OngoingOngoing

MOA CBERRRSAMOA CBERRRSAInspectInspect 606606CleanClean 606606

2011 Catch Basin Cleaning2011 Catch Basin Cleaning

MAPPING: Systems mapping and tools

PARKING: Sweeping, sanding, and snow storage code

CONSTRUCTION: Enforcement/inspection modifications

SNOW MELTERS: Discharge permit

ILLICIT DISCHARGE: Monitoring program

MONITORING: Discharge and controls

MAPPING: MAPPING: Systems mapping and Systems mapping and toolstools

PARKING: PARKING: Sweeping, sanding, and Sweeping, sanding, and snow storage codesnow storage code

CONSTRUCTION:CONSTRUCTION: Enforcement/inspection Enforcement/inspection modificationsmodifications

SNOW MELTERS:SNOW MELTERS: Discharge permitDischarge permit

ILLICIT DISCHARGE: Monitoring programILLICIT DISCHARGE: Monitoring program

MONITORING:MONITORING: Discharge and controlsDischarge and controls

Other Program ElementsOther Program Elements

Anchorage MS4 Management

Anchorage MS4 Management

Anchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 Program

MS4 MonitoringMS4 MonitoringMS4 Monitoring

Types of Monitoring  Projects

Dry Weather Screening

Storm Water Outfall Monitoring

Pesticide Screening in Three Lakes

Snow Storage Site Runoff Monitoring

Sedimentation Pond Effectiveness  Monitoring

OGS Effectiveness Monitoring

Low Impact Development Pilot Project 

Monitoring

Pesticide Screening

Otis, Little Campbell, 

Hideaway Lakes

Monitor for:

2, 4‐D

Carbaryl

Sample in 2011 and 2013

Dry Weather Screening

Purpose: to identify illicit discharges

15 sites – 5 outfalls in each of 3 basins/year.   Selected based 

on:

Diversity of land uses

Level of development

Complaints

Screening for pollutant indicators

pH

Turbidity

Chlorine

Phenols

Detergents

Total copper 

Fecal coliform

Outfall Monitoring

Purpose:  assess quality of MS4 

outfalls

10 sites with a diversity of 

land uses

Monitor 4 times/yr for:

Flow (instantaneous)

pH

Temperature

Dissolved oxygen

Turbidity

BOD

Fecal coliform

Total suspended solids

Petroleum (TAH, TAqH) 

Snow Storage Site Run‐off

Purpose: assess effectiveness of 

BMPs (V‐trenches and settling pond)

Evaluate 2 sites (Tudor & 

Kloepp or another)

Monitor:

Flow  (continuous)

Turbidity

Specific conductivity  

(surrogate for chloride)

Sedimentation Basin  Effectiveness 

Purpose:  assess effectiveness of 

ponds are removing pollutants

Evaluate 3 basins

Monitor 4 + storms/yr for 3 

seasons

Monitor inlet & outlet for:

Flow (continuous)

pH

Temperature

Dissolved oxygen

Turbidity

BOD

Total suspended solids

Fecal coliform

OGS Effectiveness Purpose:  assess effectiveness of 

OGS systems at removing 

pollutants

Evaluate up to 4 OGS systems

Monitor 4 + storms/yr for 3 seasons

Monitor inlet & outlet for:

pH

Temperature

Turbidity

Dissolved oxygen

BOD

Fecal coliform

Total suspended solids

Petroleum (TAH, TAqH)

LID Evaluation

Purpose:  Assess overflow 

from LID pilot projects

Construct 5 pilot projects 

10,000 ft2

or 5 acres

Parking lot retrofits

Rain gardens

Bioswales

Model theoretical overflow

Monitor overflow ‐

one 

season

Schedule2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Type of Monitoring F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J

Pesticides P S S R P S S R

Dry Weather P P S S R P P S S R P P S S R P P S S R P S S R

SW Outfall  O P P S S S S S S R P P S S S S S S R P P S S S S S S R P P S S S S S S R P P S S S S S S RS

Sedimentation Basins O O P P S S S S S S R P P S S S S S S R P P S S S S S S RS

OGS P P P P O O P P S S S S S S R

Snow Storage Areas Plan and ConstO P S S S S S R

LID Plan and Construct O P P S S S S S S R

P PreparationS S SamplingO Order equipmentR Report,   Note:  RS= Summary ReportP Plan and Construct

BREAKBREAKBREAK

Refreshments

Public Education Projects

RefreshmentsRefreshments

Public Education ProjectsPublic Education Projects

Anchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 ProgramAnchorage MS4 ProgramWatershed Approach

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

Watershed PlanningWatershed PlanningWatershed Planning

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)

DOWL HKM

Brad Melocik, P.E., P.H.

Rich Pribyl, E.I.

Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Dave Felstul

Mary Larkin

Stormwater Criteria Manual Update APDES MS4 Permit Requirements

Re: Areas of New Development and Redevelopment

“keep and manage the runoff generated from the first  0.52 inches of rainfall from a 24 hour event”

Update Stormwater Criteria Manual (within 2 years)

Promote use of site‐based practices ‐

local soils & hydrology

List acceptable BMPs  ‐

sizing/performance criteria, design 

examples, and selection guidance

Specifications for long term M&O

Increased use of LID technologies in private & public  projects

Stormwater Criteria Manual Update Existing Manuals

Design Criteria Manual: Chapter 2 Drainage (2007)

Drainage Design Guidelines (2007)

Low Impact Development Design Guidance Manual 

(2008)

Storm Water Treatment Plan Review Guidance 

Manual (Third Edition, 2010)

http://www.muni.org/Departments/works/project_management/Pages

/Publications.aspx

Stormwater Criteria Manual Update Proposed Manuals

DCM: Chapter 2 Drainage (2011 update)

Requirements & Policies

Plan Submittal & Review Process

Runoff Quantity & Quality

Conveyance Design

Stormwater Control and Treatment (2011)

Facility Design: BMPs

Site Constraints, Design Guidance, Materials, M&O

Construction Activities

Stormwater Criteria Manual Update Project Progress & Schedule

November 2011 –

Project Kickoff/MOA Meetings

February 2011 – 1st

SMAC Meeting

April 2011 – Draft Manual Complete (on schedule)

May 2011 ‐

2nd

SMAC Meeting

July 2011 – Draft Final Manual Complete

August 2011 ‐

3rd

SMAC Meeting

October 2011 – Final Manual Complete

Conduct Workshops

Questions?

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

• Revised SWPPP Guide• DOT Hydrology Manual• Evaluate onsite stormwater retention during

project development

Project Development Process

3/30/2011 57Alaska DOT&PF

• 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

Residential Rain Residential Rain GardenGarden

Public/Demonstration Public/Demonstration Rain GardenRain Garden

..

Reimbursements and FundingReimbursements and Funding

Total Rain Gardens:

56

Total Reimbursements:

$37,600

Community PerspectiveCommunity PerspectiveCommunity Perspective

Panel Discussion: “Leave it to Maintenance”

Dan Southard – Street Maintenance Holly Spoth-Torres – Park MaintenanceChristina Eneix – Landscape ProfessionalSteve Shrader, P.E. – Civil Design Professional Rich Pribyl E.I.T. – Civil Engineer and Project ManagerRuss Oswald, P.E. – Project Manager

Panel Discussion: Panel Discussion: ““Leave it to MaintenanceLeave it to Maintenance””

Dan Southard Dan Southard –– Street Maintenance Street Maintenance Holly SpothHolly Spoth--Torres Torres –– Park MaintenancePark MaintenanceChristina Christina EneixEneix –– Landscape ProfessionalLandscape ProfessionalSteve Shrader, P.E. Steve Shrader, P.E. –– Civil Design Professional Civil Design Professional Rich Pribyl E.I.T. Rich Pribyl E.I.T. –– Civil Engineer and Project ManagerCivil Engineer and Project ManagerRuss Oswald, P.E. Russ Oswald, P.E. –– Project ManagerProject Manager

Discussion/ConclusionsDiscussion/ConclusionsDiscussion/Conclusions

Thank youThank youThank you

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 *