Overview of the Green Infrastructure Section of PWSA’s Feasibility Study

1. Presenter: Ross Gordon, PE, CFM, LEED AP Overview of the Green Infrastructure Section of PWSA’s Feasibility Study Presentation Charrette No. 3: April 19, 2013

2. Recap – WW Feasibility Study • PWSA and City of Pittsburgh Consent Order and Agreement (COA) • Entered January 29, 2004 • Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) • Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) • Requirement per COA Section 15. Paragraph d. • Submit Feasibility Study (FS) within 6 months after ALCOSAN submits a Wet Weather Plan (WWP)

3. Recap – Timeline 2002 PWSA Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) started under NPDES requirements 2007 ALCOSAN signs CD and begins regional planning 2008 PWSA Preliminary Draft FS completed 2009 PWSA modeling and cost estimating methods aligned with regional methods 2012 PWSA Draft FS submitted to ALCOSAN January 2013 ALCOSAN Submits Draft WWP to Regulators 2010 PWSA FS recommendations updated and preliminary flow estimates provided to ALCOSAN per COA 2004 PWSA/City Sign COA 2008 PWSA LTCP converted to a Feasibility Study (FS) July 2012 ALCOSAN releases its Draft WWP July 2013 PWSA/City to submit Final FS to regulators per COA

4. Schedule - Feasibility Study Update Feasibility Study Update Completion Schedule INITIATE FINAL DRAFT Charrette Charrette Charrette

5. PWSA Feasibility Study • Establish baseline ‘gray infrastructure’ approach to meeting compliance requirements • Includes Projects / Timeline / Costs / Affordability • Culmination of 10-year planning process • Introduce ‘green infrastructure (GI)’ alternative and Integrated Watershed Planning (IWP) framework • Lay out process to ‘green PWSA’s wet weather plan’

6. Green Infrastructure Section • Establish intentions for incorporating GI into the feasibility study • Lay out initial actions to assess feasibility of greening the baseline gray infrastructure approach • Lay out initial actions to accelerate/facilitate implementation of GI

7. Green Infrastructure Section • Lay out initial actions to demonstrate and monitor performance of GI approaches • Establish decision points to update the feasibility study and modify the COA to include GI and adaptive management

8. Feasibility Study Challenges • PWSA is required to provide a path to compliance (baseline approach) • PWSA is required to meet the schedule in the COA • Regulators looking for certainty – evidence of proposed compliance approach’s ability to meet requirements of COA

9. Green Infrastructure Challenges • GI path to compliance has not been determined yet • Ability to implement GI approach at the scale required has not been demonstrated • Ability for GI approach to meet water quality standards has not been demonstrated

10. Summary of Challenges • Feasibility Study is a balance of multiple concerns: • Timing • Efficacy/Benefit • Cost • Regulators require clear plan to meet CSO reduction obligations • Aim to provide a structure which allows for adaptation and optimization of the plan

11. Preliminary Green Infra. Section Outline • Introduction to Green Infrastructure • Public Participation • Overview of Challenges and Obstacles • Adaptive Management Approach • Short Term Action / Implementation Plan • Decision Points • Long Term Action / Implementation Plan

12. 1) Intro. to Green Infrastructure • Introduction to green infrastructure (GI) • Review of GI for CSO control • Review of Triple Bottom Line benefits of GI • Quantification of existing GI efforts • Discussion of ‘Integrated Watershed Planning’ framework • Establishment of goals and objectives for GI

13. 2) Public Participation • Introduction to GI charrette process • Charrette # 1 findings • Charrette # 2 findings • Charrette # 3 findings • “Green Infrastructure in Pittsburgh will be a success if...”

14. 3) Challenges and Obstacles • Provides impetus for implementation activities • Based on feedback provided in Charrettes • Authority to implement • Education and outreach • Collaboration • Regulatory / zoning • Financial • Maintenance • Monitoring

15. 4) Adaptive Management Approach • Provide overview of proposed adaptive management framework • Discuss benefits of continual optimization of compliance activities • Review gray / green interface and how it can be optimized • Discuss process of staying on schedule while exploring GI opportunities

16. 5) Short Term Action/Implementation Plan • Accelerate/facilitate implementation of GI • Demonstrate and monitor performance of GI • Inform decision making process • Develop inter-agency GI task force • Continue public education and outreach • Streamline bureaucracy / permitting • Establish regional partnerships • Plan/construct/assess early implementation projects • Conduct system-wide GI alternatives assessment • Address major zoning / regulatory impediments • Develop GI design and maintenance manuals • Develop GI monitoring and tracking plan • Finalize assessment of stormwater utility • Develop ‘Implementation and Adaptive Management Plan’

17. 6) Decision Points • Establish schedule of decision points • Establish criteria to be met at each decision point and consequences of not meeting criteria • Establish process for modifying Consent Order and Agreement

18. 7) Long Term Action/Implementation Plan • Provide vision for long-term GI / hybrid approach to CSO control • Provide vision for ‘Integrated Watershed Planning’ approach • Establish framework of long-term adaptive management process • Establish long-term process for assessing progress towards compliance

19. GI Section Summary • Roadmap to incorporate GI into the feasibility study • Set of short term obligations to accelerate/facilitate implementation of GI • Establishment of decision points and process to amend Consent Order and Agreement to incorporate GI

20. Presenter: Ross Gordon, PE, CFM, LEED AP Overview of AdaptiveManagement Approach to Green Infrastructure Presentation Charrette No. 3: April 19, 2013

21. Key Considerations • Adaptive approach bases future actions on the success of previous actions, allowing for continual improvement • Focuses on monitoring and regular re-assessment in order to achieve goals in the most cost-effective and beneficial manner • Supports and aligns with USEPA ‘Integrated Watershed Planning’ framework

22. Preliminary Approach - Adaptive Management for PWSA • Desire to optimize the proposed solution • Gray vs. green mix • Types/applications of green infrastructure (GI) • Short term goal: secure approval to modify the compliance approach to use GI solutions in conjunction with gray solutions • Long term goal: establish a process which provides flexibility to meet water quality goals through the most cost-effective and beneficial means.

23. Short Term Decision Points • #1 - Regional/regulatory support to move forward with GI initiatives • #2 - Technical justification from feasibility, performance, and cost standpoints • #3 - Performance warrants incorporation of GI into plan • Issue update to regulators for modification of Consent Order and Agreement

24. Draft - Short Term Process YEAR 4-5 YEAR 2-4 YEAR 1 • Submit Feasibility Study • Coordinate w/ regulators • Develop inter-agency GI task force • Continued public outreach • Coordinate w/ regional partners • Plan early demonst. projects • Initiate changes to promote and facilitate GI • Implement early demonstration projects • Conduct system-wide GI alternatives assessment • Initiate further changes to promote and facilitate GI • Develop GI design and maintenance manuals • Develop monitoring and tracking plan • Monitoring and assessment • Initiate further changes to promote and facilitate GI • Development of Adaptive Management Plan Decision Point #3: Performance warrants incorporation of ‘green’ • Submit revised plan to Regulators Decision Point #1: Regional/regulatory support to move forward with GI initiatives Decision Point #2: Technical justification from feasibility, performance, and cost standpoint Preferred Outcome: Modify Consent Order and Agreement to include green infrastructure Revert to Gray Infrastructure Revert to Gray Infrastructure

25. Long Term Considerations • Desire flexibility to choose between green and gray solutions based on measured past performance • Desire flexibility to achieve stormwater improvements through various means • i.e. - private vs. public improvements • Desire flexibility to focus on integrated watershed planning instead of a narrow focus on CSOs

26. Conclusions • PWSA to initiate progress on time-sensitive gray solutions while evaluating feasibility of green approaches • Establish initial actions and series of decision points for moving forward with the ‘greening of the wet weather plan’ • Establish a more flexible framework which will allow for adaptation and optimization of the plan as it is implemented