APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016 › library › meetings › pwx › 10827.pdf · APWA 2016 PWX...

APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016

City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program 1

Developing an Integrated Capital Improvement Project Prioritization Model for Strategic Municipal Stormwater Management

Scott D. Bryant, PESenior Engineer / Strategic Planning

City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program

PWX 2016 Stormwater Summit

August 29, 2016

2



Outline

Background for Model [Why?]

Stakeholder Team Collaboration[Keys to the Model]

Model Implementation

Q&A

3

4

Flooding Hazards [street flooding]



Flooding Hazards [structural flooding]

5

6

Flooding Hazards [non‐structural; limiting access]



7

Impaired and Degraded Streams

8

Aging and Undersized Infrastructure



9

Failing Infrastructure

10

Drainage Complaints



11

Emerging Needs and Opportunities [green infrastructure and rainwater harvesting]

12



13

Leadership + Vision + Resources + Teamwork

14

Leadership + Vision + Resources + Teamwork



Outline




Q&A

15

Jan – Mar 2015 Stormwater Program/Budget Workshops with City Council

Mar – April Staff Planning / City Strategic Plan Adopted

May 7 SMAC – Project Prioritization Model Kickoff

May ‐ June SMAC Sub‐Committee Workshops #1 ‐ #3

July 9 SMAC – Update & Review Preliminary Model

July 30 SMAC Sub‐Committee Workshop #4

Sept 3 Final Initial Model & Implementation Plan to SMAC

Nov 17, 2015 Update to City Council

Apply for FY 2017 CIP Budget and beyond

Stakeholder Team Collaboration

16

City Council

Stormwater Management Advisory Commission (SMAC)

SMAC + Staff Team

Public Input



Evaluation and ranking of integrated prioritization model criteria

‐ Pairwise comparisons‐ Consensus on final weights and rankings

17

Summary Results for SMAC + Staff TeamAvg Wt % Avg Rank

Public Safety & Public Health 17.0 1

Flood Hazard Reduction Benefits 13.6 2

Regulatory Mandates & Compliance 12.9 3

Water Quality Benefits 11.3 4

Watershed Management Benefits 10.2 5

Stormwater Infrastructure Asset Management Benefits 9.9 6

Community Support & Implementation Complexity 9.3 7

Resource Leveraging Opportunities 8.6 8

Indirect Community Benefits 7.2 9Sum = 100%

Stormwater Management Advisory Commission + Staff Collaboration

Model Highlights

18

Project Inputs

Project ID Number (ID Number format is "Program ID‐YEAR‐000x") 210‐2015‐0001

Project Name Upper Durant Lake Stream‐Wetland Restoration

Project Location Durant Nature Preserve

River Basin Neuse River Basin

Watershed Perry Creek

Sub‐Watershed (City "Drainage Basin") Perry Creek

Watershed Area Served by Project (watershed area for the project in ACRES) 3500

Parcels Directly Impacted by Project Improvements, if applicable (# of parcels) 1

Council District (A, B, C, D, E) A

Lead Group for Project Program Admin (209)

General CIP Program Category of Project (CIP, DA, SWQCS, CIP‐HM, Other) CIP

CIP Sub‐Category Water Quality Improvement Projects

Primary Type of Project Integrated Representative

Project Scope (Brief Description of Basic Elements; limit to space provided): Restore stream‐wetland system at existing Upper Durant Lake Photo(s):

Partner with City PRCR, possibly PUD as well

Potential grant funding opportunity

Potential mitigation credit opportunity

Priority Perry Creek TMDL watershed

Stage of Project (Preliminary, Budgeted, Active, Complete) Preliminary

Water Quality Performance Parameters for Project, if applicable:

Total annual load of TN reduced by project (in lbs TN/year) 950

Total annual load of TSS reduced by project (in lbs TSS/year) 250000

Project Cost Information:

Study/Engineering Design Cost, estimate ($) $250,000

Construction Cost, estimate ($) $1,750,000

Total Project Cost, computed estimate ($) $2,000,000

Evaluated by: Scott Bryant, PE

Date of Original Evaluation: 9/30/2015

Date Evaluation last Updated: 9/30/2015

Evaluation Checked by: Blair Hinkle, PE

Date Evaluation last Checked:

Basic Eligibility Criteria Yes No N/A

B1. Project located within corporate limits of Raleigh YES

B2. Project receives and/or conveys public runoff* YES

B3. Project is compatible with City Strategic Plan + Comprehensive Plan YES

B4. For DA and SWQCS projects ONLY, petitioner(s) utility fee payment(s) current Not Applicable

[*Stormwater Quality Cost Share (SWQCS) projects are the only exception to B2]

Integrated Prioritization Criteria [Criteria Scoring Metrics] [Criteria Weights] [Criteria Scores]

Public Safety and Public Health 0 5 10 17.0 6

PSH 1. Threat to human life No identifiable threat (0) Intermediate threat (5) High/imminent threat (10) 100% 6 PSH 2. Threat to emergency access/critical location

PSH 3. Other (non‐life) threat to public safety/health

Flood Hazard Reduction Benefits 0 5 10 14.0 4.0

FHR 1. Street Flooding No street flooding (0) Intermediate street flooding (5) Major street flooding (10) 50% 4

FHR 2. Structural Flooding No structural flooding (0) Intermediate structural flooding (5) Major structural flooding (10) 40% 4

FHR 3. Non‐Structural Flooding No non‐structural flooding (0) Intermediate non‐structural flooding (5) Major non‐structural flooding (10) 10% 4

Regulatory Mandates and Compliance 0 5 10 13.0 10

RMC 1. NPDES MS4 Stormwater Permit/Stormwater Management Program No regulatory mandate (0) Intermediate mandate/compliance (5) High priority mandate/compliance (10) 100% 10 RMC 2. Other Local, State, Federal Regulatory Programs

Water Quality Benefits 0 5 10 11.5 9.3

WQ 1. Priority Water Quality Area Non‐priority WQ area (0) 303(d) listed as impaired waters (5) Within Priority WQ Target Area (10) 33% 10

WQ 2. Pollutant Treatment/Pollutant Load Reduction benefits No pollutant treatment/load reduction benefits (0) Significant treatment/load reduction benefits (10) 33% 9

WQ 3. Erosion/Sediment Control/Sediment Load Reduction benefits No erosion/sediment control benefits (0) Significant erosion/sediment control benefits (10) 33% 9

Watershed Management Benefits 0 5 10 10.0 7.8

WM 1. Stream system/riparian area functional benefits No significant stream/riparian/floodplain benefits (0) Stream‐riparian‐floodplain restoration/functional uplift (1 ‐ 10) 25% 8

WM 2. Protect/restore floodplain functions

WM 3. Protect/restore natural hydrologic conditions No hydrologic benefits (0) Hydrologic protection/restoration benefits (3 ‐ 9) Fully restores natural hydrology (10) 25% 8

WM 4. Linkage to watershed/basin master plan/phased system improvements No linkage to master plan or not recommended (0) Linkage to master plan/phased system improvements (1, 5 or 10) 25% 10

WM 5. Known stormwater problem area/valid complaints history No known SW problems/complaints (0) Significant SW problems/high complaint level (10) 25% 5

Stormwater Infrastructure Asset Management Benefits 0 5 10 10.0 7.0

AM 1. Infrastructure condition/effective service life New/excellent condition (0) Intermediate/fair condition (5) Poor/failing condition (10) 25% 8

AM 2. Infrastructure capacity/level of service Full LOS/capacity (0) Intermediate LOS/capacity (5) Poor LOS/capacity (10) 25% 6

AM 3. Consequence/risk of infrastructure failure Low risk/low consequence (1) Intermediate risk/consequence (5) High risk/high consequence (10) 25% 7

AM 4. Infrastructure asset operation & maintenance benefits/cost savings No O&M benefits (0) Intermediate O&M benefits (5) High O&M benefits (10) 25% 7

Community Support and Implementation Complexity 0 5 10 9.0 9.5

CSIC 1. Level of community support/acceptance Low level of support (1) Intermediate level of support (5) High level of support (10) 25% 10

CSIC 2. Right‐of‐Way (ROW)/Easement availability Easements required (0 ‐ 9) All existing Public ROW/Public Land (10) 25% 10

CSIC 3. Project regulatory permitting/mitigation requirements Di ffi cul t to permit/high mitigation (0) Typical permitting/no mitigation required (5) Desirable permitting/mitigation credit (10) 25% 8

CSIC 4. Public and private utility impact/relocation considerations High level of utility impacts (0) Typical level of utility impacts (5) No utility impacts (10) 25% 10

Resource Leveraging Opportunities 0 5 10 8.5 5.0

RL 1. Grant funding opportunity No external funding (0) Beneficial loan opp. (1 ‐ 2) Intermediate external funding, 25% (5) High external funding, 50%+ (10) 100% 5

RL 2. Public‐private (non‐City) funding partnership opportunity

RL 3. Attractive/beneficial loan funding opportunity

Indirect Community Benefits 0 5 10 7.0 8.5

ICB 1. Leading/innovative Stormwater Management (SWM) practice Typical/routine SWM practice (0) Partially innovative (5) Fully leading/innovative SWM practice (10) 25% 7

ICB 2. Integral public educational opportunity No integral public educ (0) Limited integral public educ (5) High level of integral public educ (10) 25% 10

ICB 3. Opportunity to collaborate area improvements with other department(s) Not applicable (0) Intermediate collaborative opportunity (5) Major collaborative opportunity (10) 25% 10

ICB 4. Level of consistency with City Strategic Plan + Comprehensive Plan Not inconsistent (1) Intermediate level of consistency (5) High level of consistency (10) 25% 7



Model Highlights

19

Project information

Model Highlights

20

9 Integrated Prioritization Criteria

• Defined by sub‐criteria

• 25 total scoring metrics



Scoring Metrics Example [Flood Hazard Reduction]

Model Highlights

21

7 5 3

Scoring Metrics Example [Asset Management]

Model Highlights

22Table AM 3 adapted from:

8 5

7

10



Model Highlights

23

Outputs?

[Scores and other information to support decision making]

Project ID

Number Project Name

General

Category

of ProjectPrimary Type of

Project Sub‐Watershed

Council

District

Total

Project

Score

(TPS)

Safety

Criticality

Score

(SCS)

Mission

Criticality

Score

(MCS) Lead Group for Project

Study and/or

Engineering

Design Cost Construction Cost Total Project CostWatershed Area

Served by Project Cost / Area Served

Number of

Parcels Directly

Impacted

Cost / Parcel(s) Directly

Impacted

Annual TN Pollutant

Load Reduced Cost / TN Reduced

Annual TSS Pollutant

Load Reduced Cost / TSS Reduced Cost‐Score Index

(0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) ($) ($) ($) (in Acres) ($/Acre) (# of parcels) ($/# of parcels) (lbs TN/yr) ($/lbs TN/yr) (lbs TSS/yr) ($/lbs TSS/yr) ($/TPS)

210‐2015‐0001 Northshore Lake/Spillway Rehab/Wetland CIP Integrated Marsh Creek B 73.39 100.00 91.74 Infrastructure (210) $375,000 $4,091,722 $4,466,722 850.0 5,255 26 171,797 811 5,508 205,304 22 60,861

Model Highlights

24

Outputs?


Project ID

Number Project Name

General

Category



Council

District

Total

Project

Score

(TPS)

Safety

Criticality

Score

(SCS)

Mission

Criticality

Score


Study and/or

Engineering



Number of

Parcels Directly

Impacted


Impacted

Annual TN Pollutant






Project ID

Number Project Name

General

Category



Council

District

Total

Project

Score

(TPS)

Safety

Criticality

Score

(SCS)

Mission

Criticality

Score

(MCS)

(0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100)

210‐2015‐0001 Northshore Lake/Spillway Rehab/Wetland CIP Integrated Marsh Creek B 73.39 100.00 91.74



Model Highlights

25

Outputs?


Project ID

Number Project Name

General

Category



Council

District

Total

Project

Score

(TPS)

Safety

Criticality

Score

(SCS)

Mission

Criticality

Score


Study and/or

Engineering



Number of

Parcels Directly

Impacted


Impacted

Annual TN Pollutant






Cost / Area Served

Number of

Parcels Directly

Impacted


Impacted

Annual TN Pollutant




($/Acre) (# of parcels) ($/# of parcels) (lbs TN/yr) ($/lbs TN/yr) (lbs TSS/yr) ($/lbs TSS/yr) ($/TPS)

5,255 26 171,797 811 5,508 205,304 22 60,861

Outline




Q&A

26



Each sectional team uses the model to help envision, identify, and evaluate potential projects on an ongoing basis

On a regular quarterly basis ‐ projects evaluated and reviewed at sectional levels are placed into an integrated master portfolio of potential CIP projects

The developing CIP Portfolio is reviewed and vetted by the cross‐sectional CIP Leadership Team

Strategic updates to SMAC culminating in annual CIP program budget recommendations for official consideration

As a best practice, continual improvement/adaptive management updates to the model are regularly noted, discussed, and incorporated ahead of the upcoming fiscal calendar year. Updates provided to SMAC and City Council, as appropriate, on any revisions/improvements, etc.


27

Direct Outcomes Achieved

28

Key Decision Support Tools for Stormwater CIP Planning Process



Direct Outcomes Achieved

29

Key Decision Support Tools for Stormwater CIP Planning Process

• Heightened Program Transparency and Accountability

• Heightened Program Integration

– encourages team‐based, innovative, and strategic approach to stormwater management

– preferred projects help achieve stormwater quality and quantity goals

– provides framework and priorities for enhanced watershed management

• Aligned with City Strategic Plan

– leading practice consistent with organizational excellence

– contributing to overall community quality of life and advancing the City of Raleigh

Larger Stormwater Program Benefits

30



Thanks

31

Dale Hyatt

Outline




Q&A

32



For more information

City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Program

Web:Raleighnc.gov search “stormwater”

Scott Bryant, PESenior Engineer / Strategic [email protected]

33

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

1

Beth Neuendorf, MnDOT Metro Water Resources Engineer

Barb Loida, MnDOT Metro MS4 Engineer

John Gulliver, University of Minnesota Civil Engineering and St Anthony Falls Laboratory

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

2

Had GIS System to Capture Field Inspections, but not everything in it.

We mapped the rest using As-Builts, Plan Sets,Field Reviews, Video Contracts

Can be displayed on our GIS tool on our iHUB website.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

3

Clearly lays out BMPS – those apply to all facilities and those unique to that facility.

Lays out responsibilities.

Covers inspections and training that must be done.

Contains a map for stormwater for each facility.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

4

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

5

• Metro area from 2012 list there are 320 impaired waters. 2014 proposed list add 66.

• These waters are listed on EPA’s 303d list.

• Impaired waters require a TMDL study.

• We need to know how this impacts us.

Chloride

Dissolved Oxygen Nutrients

Turbidity

BACTERIA (E.COLI)

Biotic Impairments

These need to address in projects. Bacteria and Chloride are more operational issues.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

6

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

7

Communication between MS4 and WRE Design Staff

• What TMDL?• Where is it?• Do we have a WLA?• What do we need to do about it?

MnDOT has 100’s of project in the Metro area each year. So question becomes how to communicate TMDL and WLA needs with designers.

1st Attempt

Access Database

Issues:

• Multiple lakes with same name

• Many unnamed creeks

• Need to see where in relation impaired water is to our R/W

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

8

2nd Attempt

• GIS tool on MnDOT’s iHUB website• Used familiar transportation theme – stop

lights• Allows designers to see where their project is

in relation to impaired water, what water is impaired for, if we have a WLA, if it is met, and if not, how to address it in the design and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

What we did?

• Used MPCA’s spatial information from their GIS database and merged it with ours.

• Went through TMDL reports and added information (do we drain to waterbody, if so, what is our WLA, what % of watershed is ours, what highways drain to it…)

• Have our geodatabase loaded onto Georilla and regularly updated.

• All of this is being done in house.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

9

Color Data Shows What Extra You Need to Do:

RED

MnDOT WLA YES

MnDOT WLA Met NO

MnDOT Drain To YES

List in SWPPP* and see if you can provide

extra treatment.

ORANGE

MnDOT WLA NO, TBD

MnDOT WLA Met NO, TBD, NA

MnDOT Drain To YES, TBD

List in SWPPP* if MnDOT has drainage to

the impaired water.

YELLOW

MnDOT WLA YES

MnDOT WLA Met YES

MnDOT Drain To YES

List in SWPPP*.

GREEN

MnDOT WLA NA

MnDOT WLA Met NA

MnDOT Drain To No

You don’t have to do anything!

GREY HATCHEDDelisted

You don’t have to do anything, waterbody

meets state’s WQ standards.

WHITEFor Chloride and E.coli Check if bridge drainage and see if

treatment is possible.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

10

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

11

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

12

Waiting for Georilla to be Updated

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

13

Impaired waters list updated every two years. And the lists generally take EPA two years to approve.

Each impaired water has may subwatersheds. Still need for designers to look closer at areas since all subwatershed layers are too extensive to put on Georilla.

Need for TMDL studies to show existing loads for all lakes and streams so know what our targets are.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

14

• Provides an effective tool for communicating between designers and MS4 staff for how to address TMDLs, WLAs and impaired waters in projects.

• Captures project information in our database for our annual MS4 report.

Questions

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

15

Federal funded project, pass through money via the MN Pollution Control Agency.

Competitive process. Joint project between University of Minnesota,

MnDOT and City of Roseville. Funding/Contract 2012.

Iron filings research showed great promise in removing dissolved phosphorus and heavy metals.

A lot of waterbodies in MN classified as impaired for nutrients (phosphorus).

Looking for a more cost effective BMP for small watersheds.

Desire to have something MnDOT Maintenance forces could build.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

16

Total Phosphorus

Dissolved phosphorus

Phosphate

Dissolved Organic Phosphorus

Particulate Phosphorus

~56%

~4%

~44%

~40%

0.45 μm filter

Filter particulate phosphorus, need to treat for phosphate

Elemental iron rusts => Fe+3 => Reacts with and captures phosphate

Use sand to◦ Filter particles◦ Slow down water to allow contact with iron◦ Keep iron from consolidating

Vertical Iron Enhanced Sand Filters had been successful ~70% iron retention

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

17

(Ahmed et al. 2014)

(Natarajan and Gulliver 2015)

Laboratory prototype◦ Flume tests C33 sand-iron filings media Iron fabric media

Re-design w/ coarser sand-iron media◦ Sand selection D50 = 1.18 mm◦ Column tests for P retention 92.5% Sand + 7.5% Iron

Were existing soil filters

Pink are locations for research

Replaced 2, fixed 1

Green lines ditch flow

Ditch is receiving sheet flow from highway.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

18

Filter Media – 93% construction sand, 7% iron filings by weight.

Growing media – 1 compost mix, 1peat mix

All rock – washed.

Fencing for cage – coated so we weren’t adding zinc to system.

Impermeable barrier added to trench – could sample.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

19

Need for covering rip rap – safety issue. Finding fabric that would allow necessary

amount of water through. Media Design – determine size of sand. Getting bags sewn.

Removal of soil at existing ditch block

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

20

Shaping ditch

Trench for filter cage

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

21

Sign crew building cage

Installation of filter bags

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

22

Burrito method

Cage finished with sampling site in and river rock.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

23

Installation of choker coarse rock

Installation of soil

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

24

Finished with salt tolerant sod

$5,200 for Design and Oversight

$10,000 in Materials

$13,000 for Labor

$13,000 for Equipment

First time we built these – expect costs for building in future go down.

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

25

Go with burrito type system.

No cage

Use only in narrow ditches

Use sources for materials more readily available

Sand-iron filter insert performance◦ Storm events (Summer 2015)◦ Water levels, filter outflow (Dupuit’s equation)◦ Composite WQ Samples Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP)

Sampling location

**Not drawn to scale**

Instrumentation in Monitoring well

Sampling tube from ISCO sampler

Pressure transducer

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

26

Existing soil berm (without filter insert)

Site 3Existing soil bermDrainage area = 0.22 ha

Stillwater, Washington County, MN

Sampling location

Sand Bag Ditch Block Failed

Proper width and sealing to prevent leakage, flow bypass◦ Re-installation?

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

27

Date Rainfall (cm)

SRP EMCin(µg/L)

SRP Mass Removal Date Rainfall

(cm)SRP

EMCin (µg/L)

SRP Mass Removal

5/3/15 1.13 666 47.1% 6/17/15 2.54 114 35.4%

5/10/15 0.91 885 43.1% 6/22/15 1.24 128 36.6%

5/14/15 1.14 627 36.0% 6/28/15 0.76 283 14.9%

5/17/15 1.02 561 46.2% 6/29/15 1.88 116 40.1%

5/24/15 3.14 1000 53.9% 7/6/15 10.7 218 -10.5%

5/29/15 1.59 417 45.3% 7/28/15 0.79 202 43.1%

6/3/15 1.9 280 36.1% 8/18/15 3.54 274 36.0%

6/11/15 1.08 457 28.2% 8/22/15 4.11 184 -8.70%

6/13/15 1.77 168 41.7%

Mass Removal for 17 events: Mean = 33%; Median = 37%; Cumulative = 35%

SRP: Soluble Reactive PhosphorusEMC: Event Mean Concentration

Date Rainfall (cm)

SRP EMCin(µg/L)

SRP Removal Date Rainfall

(cm)SRP

EMCin (µg/L)

SRP Removal

5/14/15 1.13 486 -29.8% 6/29/15 1.88 181 2.49%

5/29/15 1.59 290 -0.69% 7/6/15 10.7 416 14.2%

6/3/15 1.90 342 -8.2% 7/12/15 6.25 121 -37.2%

6/7/15 2.13 143 -199% 7/18/15 2.36 151 10.7%

6/13/15 1.77 232 15.9% 8/18/15 38 283 -111%

6/20/15 1.22 57.2 -180% 8/22/15 4.11 244 -55.3%

6/22/15 1.24 144 -109%

SRP: Soluble Reactive PhosphorusEMC: Event Mean Concentration

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

28

Assume:• Five iron-enhanced ditch blocks in series, • Equal lengths between the ditch blocks, • Equal inflow off of the slope of the ditch into the ditch

center, • No infiltration in the center of the ditch, and• A 35% retention in each ditch block for phosphate. Then, the concentration coming out of the last ditch block is 33% of the concentration coming inor 67% removal of phosphate

Can improve runoff treatment by roadside ditches

Remove runoff phosphate◦ 35% average reduction

In-series installation for greater reduction Long-term performance and maintenance

needs yet to be investigated◦ Effect of top soil cover

APWA 2016 PWX 8/18/2016

29

Received Funds to Monitor for an Additional 3 Years

Questions

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

1

NATIONAL MUNICIPAL STORMWATER ALLIANCE

(NMSA)

WHO AM I?

Randy Neprash, PE

[email protected]

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

2

OVERVIEW

•Background information on NMSA

•NMSA Action areas

•Current status of NMSA

•NMSA Members

•What’s next?

•Questions

WHAT IS NMSA?

An alliance of state and regional

groups comprised of MS4 permittees

that is solely focused on MS4 issues

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

3

PROBLEM STATEMENT

“Stormwater runoff is the only major source of

water pollution that is increasing in many parts of

the U.S.; however, stormwater infrastructure is still

often considered a secondary or ancillary

infrastructure segment. In order to meet the

rising challenge of stormwater pollution, the

function of stormwater infrastructure must be

enhanced.”

MOTIVATION FOR FORMATION

• To represent MS4 permittees at the national level by providing a unified voice

• To lead changes in regulation both proactively and reactively

• To connect and unite MS4 programs

• To promote stormwater as a resource

• To improve the public image of stormwater

• To create opportunities for multi‐benefit and multi‐use stormwater projects

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

4

VISION FOR NMSA

• NMSA’s vision is to provide clean water for the

nation

• This vision will be met through the following

Supporting Principles:

• Provide efficient programs

• Provide effective programs

• Base decisions on science

OUR ACTION AREAS

• SECTOR SUPPORT AND INFORMATION

• MESSAGING & COMMUNICATION

• EDUCATION

• POLICY/ADVOCACY

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

5

SECTOR SUPPORT AND INFORMATION

• Explore topics and related projects at a national

scope that are of interest and benefit to MS4s

• Coordinate technology and information transfer at

the national level between state and regional‐level

MS4 groups

• Communicate with member MS4s across multiple

topics using a variety of information dissemination

venues and platforms

SECTOR SUPPORT AND INFORMATION

• Coordinate with other national organizations that

impact the MS4 sector

• Assist states in managing existing or forming

new/nascent state and regional‐level groups

representing MS4 permittees

• Work with WEF member associations in a

collaborative fashion

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

6

MESSAGING & COMMUNICATION

• Distribute information about court rulings and

new rules & regs

• Collect, reformat, generate, and distribute public

education materials related to MS4 programs and

policies

• Explore national media campaign(s) to amplify

public education for stormwater

EDUCATION

• Provide exchange forums for MS4 permittees

• Support & expand public education for

stormwater

• Provide or support technical reports

• Provide or support guidance manuals

• Host technical forums

• Support member activities and conferences

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

7

POLICY/ADVOCACY

• Speak directly with EPA staff

• Provide a conduit to Federal regulatory and

legislative contacts of interest to MS4 community

• Provide strategic support on regulatory and

legislative actions at state/local level

• Provide formal comments on federal regulatory

proposals from the perspective of MS4 permittees

POLICY/ADVOCACY

• Provide timely communications on pending and

ongoing regulatory and legislative actions impacting

the MS4 community

• Provide policy analysis to MS4 community

• Coordinate and work with other national groups to

amplify messages on MS4 issues

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

8

WHERE WE ARE NOW

• We have incorporated as a 501(c)(3)

• Currently completing the non‐profit establishment phase

• Executive Committee beginning the work of the organization

• Completed a charter and recommendations for the organization

• We have formalized an MOU with WEF and are part of the WEF Stormwater Institute

MEMBER GROUPS

• State/regional groups of MS4 permittees

independently formed in over 20 states

• Is there a group in your state that we should know

about?

• These groups provide critical support for MS4

programs

• Chair and vice‐chair from state‐level groups

• 10 groups currently members of NMSA; in discussion

with 22 in total

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

9

CURRENT MEMBERS

• Initial stormwater organizations making up the NMSA

membership:

1. Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition

2. California Stormwater Quality Association

3. Central Massachusetts Regional Stormwater Coalition

4. Ohio Stormwater Association

5. Tennessee Stormwater Association

6. Indiana Association for Floodplain and Stormwater Management

7. Iowa Stormwater Education Partnership

8. Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association

9. Arizona stormwater outreach for regional municipalities

10. Louisiana Urban stormwater coalition

NEXT STEPS

• Continue to engage in outreach to gain new

members

• Focus on products / initiatives

• Quarterly calls with membership for consistent

input

• Continue regular engagement with EPA

• Better understand the needs of MS4 permittees

and articulate them to EPA staff

APWA 2016 PWX 8/27/2016

10

GET INVOLVED

• www.nationalstormwateralliance.org

• Leadership:

• Chair: Randy Neprash, Minnesota Cities

Stormwater Coalition

([email protected])

• Vice Chair: Scott Taylor, California

Stormwater Quality Association

([email protected])

APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016 › library › meetings › pwx › 10827.pdf · APWA 2016 PWX...

Documents

Transcript of APWA 2016 PWX August 29, 2016 › library › meetings › pwx › 10827.pdf · APWA 2016 PWX...