1
Overview of the Green
Infrastructure Section of
PWSA’s Feasibility Study
Presenter: Ross Gordon, PE, CFM, LEED AP
Presentation Charrette No. 3: April 19, 2013
Recap – WW Feasibility Study
2

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)
Recap – Timeline
3
2002
2007
2008
2009
2012
January 2013
PWSA Long
ALCOSAN
PWSA
PWSA modeling
PWSA Draft
ALCOSAN
Term Control signs CD and Preliminary
and cost
FS submitted
Submits Draft
Plan (LTCP)
begins
Draft FS
estimating
to ALCOSAN
WWP to
started under
regional
completed methods aligned
Regulators
2010
NPDES
planning
with regional
PWSA FS
requirements
methods
recommendations
2004
2008
July 2012
July 2013
updated and
PWSA/City
PWSA LTCP
ALCOSAN
PWSA/City
preliminary flow
Sign COA
converted to
releases its
to submit
estimates provided
a Feasibility
Draft WWP
Final FS to
to ALCOSAN per
Study (FS)
regulators
COA
per COA
Initial Draft FS completed
Refine the FS to achieve
consistency with regional
planning efforts
Complete remaining
planning tasks and
integrate prior planning
activities into a final FS
Schedule - Feasibility Study Update
4
INITIATE
June
DRAFT
#1
#2
#3
Charrette
Charrette
Charrette
2013
May
2013
April
2013
March
2013
February
2013
2013
Feasibility Study Update Completion Schedule
July
FINAL
PWSA Feasibility Study
5

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’
Green Infrastructure Section
6



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
Green Infrastructure Section
7


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
Feasibility Study Challenges
8
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

Green Infrastructure Challenges
9
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

Summary of Challenges
10

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

Preliminary Green Infra.
Section Outline
11
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
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
1) Intro. to Green Infrastructure
12
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

2) Public Participation
13
Introduction to GI charrette process
 Charrette # 1 findings
 Charrette # 2 findings
 Charrette # 3 findings
 “Green Infrastructure in Pittsburgh will be a
success if...”

3) Challenges and Obstacles
14


Provides impetus for implementation activities
Based on feedback provided in Charrettes
 Authority to implement
 Education and outreach
 Collaboration
 Regulatory / zoning
 Financial
 Maintenance
 Monitoring
4) Adaptive Management Approach
15
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

5) Short Term Action/Implementation Plan
16



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’
6) Decision Points
17
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

7) Long Term Action/Implementation Plan
18
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

GI Section Summary
19
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
Overview of Adaptive
Management Approach to
Green Infrastructure
Presenter: Ross Gordon, PE, CFM, LEED AP
Presentation Charrette No. 3: April 19, 2013
Key Considerations
21



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
Preliminary Approach - Adaptive
Management for PWSA
22

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.
Short Term Decision Points
23
#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

Draft - Short Term Process
24
YEAR 1
YEAR 2-4
YEAR 4-5
• 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 #1:
Regional/regulatory
support to move forward
with GI initiatives
Decision Point #2:
Technical justification from
feasibility, performance,
and cost standpoint
Revert to Gray Infrastructure
Revert to Gray Infrastructure
Decision Point #3:
Performance warrants
incorporation of ‘green’
• Submit revised plan to
Regulators
Preferred Outcome:
Modify Consent Order and
Agreement to include
green infrastructure
Long Term Considerations
25
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
Conclusions
26
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
