Watershed Management Plan

Transcription

1 SESWA Annual Conference City of Atlanta Watershed Management Plan 24 October 2013

2 Agenda I. Purpose of the WMP II. Why plan for the future? III. Watershed management prioritization IV. Capital improvement planning V. Green infrastructure initiative VI. Asset management framework Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 2

3 Purpose of the WMP Satisfy regulatory requirements Better manage existing infrastructure Identify effective drainage and water quality improvements Protect public health and welfare Promote increased protection and improvement of water quality Support economic development 3

4 Why plan for the future now? Consent decrees in 1998 (CSO) and 1999 (SSO) Huge taxpayer burden Commitment of pay as you go moving forward SSO consent decree 13 year extension flexibility, broadened perspective, new technologies and methods Green infrastructure, water treatment options, water quality improvements Vision of Integrated Water Resources Management 4

5 Challenges for Atlanta Environmental regulations Lack of dedicated SW funding Changing WQ/hydrology Aging drainage infrastructure Redevelopment and new development Balancing the City s watershed management components 5

6 Integrated Water Use Opportunities 6

7 WMP Prioritization Why prioritize? Citywide, 50-year CIP Criticality model where should you spend $$$ Future Planning 7

8 Watershed Prioritization Parameter Land Use Score Open Space, Forested, Parks Residential, Institutional, Transportation Commercial, Industrial, High Density Residential Weighting Factor Undeveloped Land (Development <5% 5-18% >18% 0.75 Potential) Impervious Area <24% 24-37% >37% 1.0 Stream/Drainage Density < > (d) listed streams FC and/or Sediment <84% reduction 84-95% reduction >95% reduction 1.0 Septic Tank Density and Location <10 sq/mile 10-60/sq mile >60/sq mile 0.25 Density of HVPSs and Industrial Permitted facilities Density of Environmental Sensitive Lands (Combination of 100-year floodplain, 500-year floodplain) Water Quality (Based on long-term monitoring in WA) <2 sq/mile 2-6.5/sq mile >6.5/sq mile 0.25 >10% 5-10% <5% 0.25 High Medium Low 1.0 8

9 Watershed Prioritization 9

10 Drainage Issues CIP Projects and O&M Data collection and analysis Focus on structure type and capacity, as well as routine maintenance Drainage projects = new and replacement structures Extrapolate citywide total and annual $$$ Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 10

11 Drainage Issues CIP Projects and O&M cont. How much of the total system has drainage issues? How much of the total system needs to be cleaned? Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 11

12 Water Quality Improvements Projects Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 12

13 Water Quality Improvements Projects BMP, stream and GI desktop and field inventory WIP Tools modeling projects and programs Redevelopment SSO/CSO improvements Street sweeping GI program Project implementation WQ projects = BMP, stream, GI and watershed activities Extrapolate citywide for total costs and develop annual budgets Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 13

14 Green Infrastructure Drainage and WQ Infiltration from 1 runoff TSS and fecal load reduction Developed treatment capacity and costs Compare to alternative, traditional projects Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 14

15 GI vs. Traditional Drainage Project Location Total Gray Solution Total Green Solution Project Cost Project Cost William H Borders $1,224,870 $283, Lake Ave $862,230 $1,758, Jesse Hill Jr $5,251,680 $8,529,410 Peeples St SW and RDA $718,910 $184,070 Culberson St SW and RDA $1,340,630 $137,630 Lawton St SW and RDA $676,320 $362,500 Queen St SW and RDA $397,480 $249,090 Ralph David Abernathy Blvd $1,294,480 $801,160 Adequate, vacant space is cheapest option for infiltration CSO area has little vacant space. Use pervious pavement option, which costs more Curb cut and bioretention less costly than reconstruction of roads, inlets and curbing Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 15

16 Drainage CIP Evaluation Criteria DWM Goal Criteria Score 1 Score 3 Score 5 Customer Service Safety Weighting Factor Number of parcels affected More than Other amenity (i.e., sidewalk repair, pavement repair, education, etc.) None 1 More than Street type Arterial/Local street Major Road Expressway 2.0 Private property being flooded No -- Yes 1.0 Compliance Efficiency Currently meets level of service for 10-year, 24-hour storm event Opportunity to combine with effective GI for integrated, cost effective drainage solution Opportunity to coordinate with Public Works Street maintenance or paving project? 85-99% 50-85% <50% 2.0 No opportunity Yes, with < 50% of required volume for peak discharge reduction Yes, with > 50% of required volume for peak discharge reduction 2.0 No -- Yes 1.0 Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 16

17 WQ CIP Evaluation Criteria DWM Goal Criteria Score 1 Score 3 Score 5 Weighting Factor Customer Service Protect public health through reduction of fecal coliform <20% removal 20-50% removal >50% removal 2.0 Safety Project contained on or directly adjacent to public property (i.e., school or park) No -- Yes 1.0 Adjacent to street ROW No -- Yes 1.0 Compliance Efficiency Drains to 303(d) stream Project TSS load reduction (lbs/year) Farther than 1 mile from listed stream segment Within 1 mile of listed stream segment Drains directly into listed stream segment ,000 6,001-24,000 >24, Project bundle opportunity No -- Yes 1.0 Recreation/Greenspace/Visibility link No -- Yes 1.0 Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 17

18 Watershed and Stormwater Planning Projects Watershed improvement planning Long-term monitoring Data management System inventory Stormwater master planning Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 18

19 Green Infrastructure Initiative US Water Alliance Spotlight City September 2013 New leadership=new approach Capacity relief, mitigation Post-development SW management ordinance Interdepartmental coordination Mayor s sustainability goals

20 Asset Management Framework Brown and Caldwell 20

21

22

23 R&R Update RPM Model Results Brown and Caldwell 23

24 R&R Update RPM Model Results Brown and Caldwell 24

25 R&R Update RPM Model Results Suggest considering 50% private system in annual forecast = $9.9 million Should update as GIS data improved for system inventory 2035 = $5.4 million 2015 = $1.4 million Brown and Caldwell/DHA JV 25

26 Conclusions Prioritization and evaluation toolbox Infrastructure, drainage issues, WQ improvements, GI Justification for addressing lack of dedicated funding Asset management framework proactive, efficient, and effective Past = myopic focus on wastewater Future = renewed, energized focus on integrated water resources Brown and Caldwell 26

27 Acknowledgements City of Atlanta Jay Ash, Ray Wilke, Susan Rutherford, Julie Todd, Margaret Tanner, Kris Garcia, Nolton Johnson, Andrew Walter, Brian Rainwater Brown and Caldwell Jeff Herr, Lori Visone, Ryan Jones, Janeane Giarrusso DHA Corey Babb, Bill Douty Brown and Caldwell 27

28 Questions?? Ray Wilke Susan Rutherford Aylin Lewallen Brown and Caldwell 28