Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Many Facets of Green Infrastructure: How Municipalities are Funding Them
Matt Bardol, P.E., CFM, CPESC, D.WRE
(630) 432-5675
Drivers for Funding Stormwater Management
Response to Resource Threats
Urban flooding
Increase in runoff rate & volume
Protection of Resources
Practices reflected the era in which they were funded
Pictures courtesy of noaa.gov
New Threats and New Drivers for Funding
New Era – New Drivers
Additional Threats
Nutrients & golf hypoxia
Groundwater depletion
Climate change
MS4 & NPDES permits
Funding & Practices Evolve
Changing the Paradigm of What We Fund
Funding and implementation reflects
Understanding of practices
Trust in performance
Expanding the tool box of practices
The Status Quo Was Not Always the Status Quo
Evolution of Stormwater Management
1. Conveyance – water treated
as a waste
2. Detention – single purpose to
reduce flooding impacts of
development
3. Naturalized Detention –
detention & water quality
4. Green Infrastructure –
Mimicking nature
Werf.org
Funding reflects certainty of performance
Demonstration
(building acceptance)
Industry practice
Federal
Grants Public & Private
Investment
Cert
ain
ty
Uncertainty
Acceptance
Moving Beyond Just Adding Green
At first, “green” was the add on to projects
Do gray – the stuff that works
Then design and install green – for aesthetics
Moving to incorporating Green practices as true
Green Infrastructure
Evolution of GI Funding
Planning Grants – Watershed plans, GI Plans
Implementation Grants – Demonstration projects, one off
projects, limited impact
Public Investment or CIP
Limited implementation – where “feasible”
Paradigm shift – embraced
Development
Part of development code: Encouraged
Part of development code: Regulatory
Integrated – Regulatory and CIP
MS4 or LTCP plans
Integrated Plans
Public & Private Partnership
SWAT Funded GI Planning Grants
Regional GI Vision
County & City GI plans
Millennium Reserve
CMAP GO to 2040 Plan
Implementation Grants
IL Green Infrastructure Grants (IGIG)
Funded Projects Statewide
FY 11 – FY13
36 Grants
$15M
Evolving & Moving Beyond
Learn from the national perspective
Innovation across the US in grappling with funding GI
Some embrace Green and are looking to fund
Other are skeptical but fund based on performance
USACE supports $1B+ plan to restore
Los Angeles River
Case Studies
How are municipalities funding GI? A few examples:
1. Implementation Grants
Major citywide grant & partnership: Springfield, MO
2. Capital Improvement Plans
Developed detailed SW plan & revised development codes
Passed tax funding and bond proposition
3. Capital Improvement Plans
Stormwater Utilities
Long Term Control Plans (LTCP)
Integrated Planning Framework
Implementation Grant Springfield, MO
City of Springfield, MO
319 Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant
Awarded by Missouri DNR to Watershed Committee of
the Ozarks
$1,000,000 applied over 4 years
Four targeted sub-watersheds
Diverse partners
City of Springfield
Greene County
Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute
Missouri State Project WET
James River Basin Partnership
Ozark Greenways
Collaborate Grant
Diversity of Funded Projects
Neighborhood Retrofits – 10 rain gardens
Streetscapes – 2 sites: infiltration swales, pervious
concrete, rain gardens, & tree planters
Detention Basin Retrofits – 2 extensive redesigns with
water quality enhancements & pretreatment
Stream Corridor Improvements – Tree & buffer plantings
Non-Residential Retrofits – 10 sites (including rainwater
harvesting)
Public Property Retrofits – Water quality enhancements
at 7 parks and public open space locations
Monitoring Objectives
Measure pollutant removal efficiencies
Volume reduction
Volume of runoff treated (vs bypassed)
Statistical difference between influent and effluent water
quality
Peak flow reduction
Compare and include data in the International BMP
Database.
Modeling will be used to assess the effectiveness of the
neighborhood retrofits.
User Friendly Website
Example of Funded Projects
Existing Condition
Limited Site Data (grant
typical)
No site survey
Discrepancies with
original design plans
Minimal design
information for basin
Basin Features
Concrete swale
Large tributary parking lot
Single inlet pipe
Basin Retrofit
Design Features
Primary Design Features
Check dam at inlet – energy
dissipation
Stone lined swale (replaced
concrete) – increased
deposition
Increased flow length –
reduced short circuiting
Native vegetation –
resiliency, aesthetics, and
performance
Basin Retrofit
Design Features
Pretreatment Detail
Pretreatment
Example of Funded Projects
Existing Conditions - Limited Data
Proposed Design with Site Constraints
Under Construction
Plant Installation by Volunteers
Equestrian Arena
Rainwater Harvesting
Highly Engaged Stakeholders
Water Budget and
Performance Analysis
Water Demand
Target water replacement: Arena dust suppression
Watering varies, dependent on temperature and level of
use.
Observed use:
2 hrs/day at 15 gal/min
1,800 gallons/day
657,000 gallons/year
Water Budget and
Performance Analysis
Evaluated system performance
Used 15 minute rainfall from April to October 2013
Performed full water budget analysis
Water Demand vs Water Reuse
Anticipated water demand: 385,200 gallons
Harvested water used: 337,521 gallons
System design capable of providing 88% of water demand
Water Capture
Total runoff: 1.2 million gallons
Captured: 357,516 gallons
Only 30% of the runoff volume is captured (other potential
uses are irrigation & outdoor arena dust suppression)
System Analysis: Tank Volume
April 2013 – Oct 2013
System Analysis: Tank Volume
Jun 15, 2013 – Jul 15, 2013
Moving Forward
Appointed 30-member stormwater management task
force
Studied long-term needs for City & County
Flooding
Infrastructure needs (maintenance & investments)
Clean water mandates
Recommended annual investment for each
Ability to leverage intersecting benefits
Public Investment St. Peters, MO
St. Peters, MO
28 Miles West of St. Louis
Population of 57,000
MS4 Community
City Contains
47 miles of waterways
55 stream/roadway crossings
43 wet retention basins
207 dry basins
City Stormwater Master Plan
Developed Stormwater Master Plan in 2012
Prioritize capital improvement plan
Improve water quality
Ensure compliance with MS4 requirements
Identified Capital Improvement Plan
100 Projects - $125,000,000
Multi-functional benefits
Funding Approach
2010 storm water bond issue approved by St. Peters
voters
City has the authority to issue $40 million in bonds to
address stormwater issues
Flooding, erosion, & pollution
MS4 permit compliance
1/10-cent storm water/parks sales tax passed in 2000
$100,000s committed annually for stormwater
Major creek stabilization projects
"50/50" cost sharing projects on private property
Implementation of Retrofits
Spent ~$3M in 2014 on stormwater retrofits
Will spend similar amount in 2015
Combination of public and private ownership
Easements placed over all retrofits
100% maintained by City
Negotiated and established city wide native landscaping
and ecological maintenance contract
Provide long term maintenance on all retrofit projects
Established performance criteria for all retrofits
Prioritization of Green Infrastructure Projects
Supports Comprehensive City-wide Storm Water Master
Plan (SWMP).
Improve water quality
Continued compliance with Missouri Department of Natural
Resources Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MDNR MS4) regulations.
Green Infrastructure Auxiliary Benefits
Enhanced aesthetics
Resilient infrastructure
Community & neighborhood asset
Overview of
Project Sites North
Basins
South
Basin
Creek
Restoration
North Basins
Consists of two basins
Western Basin – tributary
area of 7.86 ac
Eastern Basin – tributary
area of 52.57 ac
South Basin
Singe basin
Tributary Area of 52.32 ac
Creek Restoration
Tributary Area of 31.43 ac
Located on private property
Overview of Project Sites
Overview of Project Site
North Basins
Existing Condition
North – Eastern Basin
Existing Outfall Concrete reinforced banks Concrete low flow channels
Existing Condition
North – Western Basin
Existing Outfall
Concrete low flow channels
Design Approach
North Basins
Primary Design Features
Major grading
Connect basins
Remove concrete channels
Create micro-pools
Install sediment traps
Use native vegetation
Design Approach
North Basins
Restoration Features
Balanced armoring & native
vegetation
Multiple vegetation zones
Detailed operation &
maintenance plan
Overview of Project Site
South Basin
Existing Condition
South Basin
Existing Outfall
Concrete low flow channels
Design Approach
South Basin
Design Approach
South Basin
Primary Design Features
Properly designed energy dissipater
Stone lined swale (replaced concrete)
Sediment bays
Native vegetation
Existing Inlet
Restoration Plan
South Basin
Stream Channel Restoration
Project overview
Stream channel stabilization and corridor restoration
Overview of Site
Urban Residential Stream
Severe erosion
Excessive down cutting
Sediment load impacting sewers &
basins
Stream within private property
Overview of Project Site
Design Approach
Design Approach
Design Features
Created Tailored Poster Boards
for “trouble” sites & lots
Integrated Funding
St. Joseph, MO
New look at LTCP implementation (2008 LTCP)
Grey infrastructure plan $51M – capture 3-month storm
Incorporating Green Infrastructure on a performance
basis
Initial Step
GI Screening
Example Site
Example Site
Case Study: Major City in Ohio
$1.4 B unaffordable LTCP
Strictly focused on CSO
Sole reliance on grey infrastructure
Re-evaluating plan through Integrated Planning
framework
Evaluate affordability
Holistic approach to clean water act obligations
Consider receiving stream water quality objectives
Green Infrastructure & Sewer Separation
Projects Integration into IP
Characterization
- Data & mapping
PH
AS
E 1
: C
ha
rac
teri
za
tio
n
PH
AS
E 2
:
Ca
tch
me
nt
Pri
ori
tizati
on
PH
AS
E 3
:
GI S
cre
en
ing
PHASE 4: GI Project
Prioritization
Green Infrastructure Identification
STEP 1
Characterization
STEP 2
Catchment Prioritization
STEP 3
GI Screening Analysis
STEP 4
GI Project Prioritization
Green Infrastructure Toolbox
Resulting in Balanced Investments
SEP 2011 CIP IPF
Wastewater
WastewaterWater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Water
SEP 2011 CIP IPF
Wastewater
WastewaterWater
Stormwater
Stormwater
Water
IP
Sanitary District 1 (SD1)
Example characterization findings
Runoff is predominant
source of bacteria to
Banklick Creek. >100 SSOs = 242 MG
~95 CSOs = 1.9 BG
March 2011 Integrated Plan
Wrap Up
Funding reflects certainty of performance
Demonstration
(building acceptance)
Industry practice
Federal
Grants Public & Private
Investment
Cert
ain
ty
Uncertainty
Acceptance
Acceptance & Funding reflects
Model Sophistication
Simple / Evaluation Based Models
Integrated / Continuous Simulation Models
Federal
Grants Public & Private
Investment
Cert
ain
ty
Uncertainty
Acceptance
Event Based Models
Event Based Models
Storm Event
Depth: 1.68 in
Continuous Simulation
What performance level is
optimal?
Design Guidance
Based on Continuous Simulation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Per
cen
t V
olu
me
Cap
ture
d
Bioretention Area (sf/acre)
6'' Ponding, 2' Media, 1' Gravel Sump 6'' Ponding, 2' Media, 2' Gravel Sump
6'' Ponding, 3' Media, 1' Gravel Sump 6'' Ponding, 3' Media, 2' Gravel Sump
12'' Ponding, 2' Media, 1' Gravel Sump 12'' Ponding, 2' Media, 2' Gravel Sump
12'' Ponding, 3' Media, 1' Gravel Sump 12'' Ponding, 3' Media, 2' Gravel Sump
