 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
|
Three counties and 32 municipalities united to create a regional stormwater management program that ultimately won a national EPA award. By John Lyons and Thomas M. Brankamp
Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky realized early that people ultimately would determine the success or failure of a new regional stormwater management program the district stood ready to implement in 1998. Before then, there was no comprehensive stormwater management program covering the 32 municipalities and three counties—Boone, Campbell, and Kenton—in northern Kentucky. These local governments, which relied on the district for collecting and treating wastewater in the region, were responsible for operating and maintaining their own municipal separate storm sewer systems. As a result, each jurisdiction faced the prospect of submitting a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit and meeting NPDES requirements on its own. "Going alone would have cost us a lot more," says Tom Holocher, mayor of the City of Fort Mitchell. "Financially, it made sense to join with these other cities and counties, and have a central agency fill out the paperwork and handle the stormwater program on a regional basis." So at the request of these 35 local governments, the district began developing and implementing a single regional stormwater program and utility that would work toward compliance with NPDES Phase II regulations. Gradually, the district will assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the individual public storm sewer systems that serve 350,000 customers over a 245-square-mile region. Since 1998, an unprecedented level of cooperation and commitment to stormwater management from stakeholders at all levels has allowed the district to examine water-quality and -quantity issues on a broader, more regional scale; address stormwater issues that extend beyond a single political jurisdiction; and operate a cost-effective program by avoiding duplication of efforts and gaps in responsibilities. Because of the success of this comprehensive, watershed-based program, the district received the prestigious 2004 National Clean Water Act Recognition Award—First Place for Stormwater Management—from the EPA. "We were able to bring together 35 political entities and collectively develop a single program that is more cost-effective—and is resulting in far greater benefits—than would have been possible with 35 separate programs," says Jeff Eger, the district's general manager. He attributes the program's success to people at all levels in northern Kentucky who were willing to work together for the greater good: District board members agreed to support the regional initiative; local government leaders cooperated with the district; citizens volunteered their time and energy on focus groups; and local schools have adopted a curriculum that teaches a whole new generation about the importance of water-quality and stormwater management. District Leaders
Accept Additional Responsibilities Eger says board members demonstrated leadership by agreeing to operate a regional stormwater program—even though they were not required to do so—because they recognized the need to address water-quantity and -quality challenges on a more holistic level. "Our board members supported this initiative because they knew it would benefit our region, not necessarily the district," Eger explains. "We knew we'd be taking on greater liability, stormwater infrastructure in various states of repair, and controversies associated with user fees. But a single organization needed to accept this responsibility to better serve the public. That is the role of a regional utility. It was the right thing to do." Accomplishments since 1998 are noteworthy: The district has established a stormwater utility, adopted a single set of stormwater rules and regulations for the region, created a plan review and inspection program, and conducted master planning and watershed management activities. A $6.3 million storm sewer inventory and condition assessment has been completed, and a $3 million capital improvement project is well under way. In addition, district inspectors and field crews have been cross-trained in operating and maintaining both sanitary and storm infrastructure. Most recently, board members agreed to a cost-sharing program that encourages the 35 communities to continue operating and maintaining their stormwater infrastructures. The district will pay 50% of the costs for community stormwater improvement projects related to water quantity and 90% of the costs for public-safety/water-quality improvement projects in a community. "This matching program recognizes the work that some communities have done, and encourages other communities to make improvements in the interim, until the district assumes control of our assets," Holocher says. Thirty-Five Local Governments Cooperated Scheyer also knew that most communities had insufficient budgets for tackling the magnitude of stormwater problems on their own. Ten years ago, the City of Erlanger determined that fixing its own stormwater problems would cost $20 million. "We don't have $20 million readily available for that function," Scheyer says. "Pooling our financial resources would let communities set regional priorities and solve the worst problems first." This mindset prevailed throughout northern Kentucky. As a result, the district was able to establish an Interlocal Agreement with each of the 35 local governments and the Kentucky Department of Highways. This agreement gives the district the authority to handle NPDES permitting activities and manage a single regional stormwater program. "The fact that 32 cities and three counties agreed to the same thing shows there was tremendous broad support and logic in doing this program in northern Kentucky," Eger says. "Everyone signed on the dotted line." Stakeholders Shape the Program "Citizens in northern Kentucky didn't understand all the little things that contribute to poor water quality, and they certainly didn't understand the link between stormwater runoff and water quality," explains Bill Spearman, P.E., project director and a vice president at Woolpert Inc., the engineering firm that helped the district develop the stormwater management program and establish the utility. "Since 1998, the district has spent a lot of time educating a lot of people about every major component of the stormwater program and utility and getting input through focus groups and public workshops." Through its public involvement program, the district educated, energized, and empowered people at all levels, including local government leaders; stakeholders such as engineers, developers, business owners, and environmentalists; and ordinary citizens. "The district invited everyone to become part of the solution, and ultimately attracted a large cross-section of people who made recommendations that shaped the program," Holocher says. Stormwater Focus Group "We put every major policy question in front of this group," Spearman says. "It was an open and honest dialogue that brought about broad consensus." Tom O'Hara, a retired mechanical engineer who lives in Boone County, was invited to participate. He has a personal interest in stormwater management, since his property is frequently flooded because of development upstream. O'Hara says he was "amazed and baffled" to learn about the level of effort required to comply with NPDES regulations. "Once I heard that all of our surrounding communities also were affected by NPDES, I was convinced that program administration and compliance could be done only by a group like the district." Sherry Carran, who served on the focus group while she was a representative on the Kenton County Conservation District, says that friction existed among some group members in the beginning. "Some people didn't understand or respect where others were coming from," she says. "But soon, because of the way Woolpert and the district facilitated the process, people started relating to one another, and everyone was given a chance to speak their mind." Carran says that once the group understood the benefits of a watershed approach, they began tackling issues such as the roles and responsibilities of a regional utility; the area, extent, and level of service; the rate methodology; and other key policy issues. For example, after evaluating various options, the focus group asked the district to go beyond NPDES Phase II compliance and accept additional responsibilities for plan review and inspections, development and enforcement of stormwater rules and regulations, the Capital Improvement Program, storm sewer system inventory, and master planning. "The focus group identified these as areas of real need in the region, and asked the district for a more comprehensive approach to stormwater management," Spearman says. The focus group also studied the most equitable way to bill for the new utility. A flat rate was recommended for residential properties after participants determined that other options were too complex and would require too much time and money for program administration. Determining a method for billing the 7,400 nonresidential properties, including commercial, industrial, and institutional sites and multifamily developments, was more difficult and took more time. After hearing the perspectives of developers, engineers, and others, the focus group recommended that nonresidential properties pay a fee based on the calculated amount of impervious area on their property. "The district was very sensitive to the focus group's feelings about rates," Holocher notes. "We knew we needed a rate sufficient to fix our stormwater problems, but it had to be affordable." O'Hara says his service on the focus group was time well spent. "I had a voice," he says, "even when my comments sometimes weren't the consensus of the group. At least I had a forum for putting them out there." Eger says the district did not expect unanimous responses from the group, but rather sought advice, feedback, and general agreement about the future direction of the program and utility. "Because we had such a high level of citizen involvement, everyone's interests were represented," he says. Rules and Regulations Focus Group The focus group also recommended that if a flood-prone area existed downstream, any new upstream development should contain additional controls to ensure that the downstream area wouldn't endure additional flooding. Jim Berling, P.E., of James W. Berling Engineering Co., understood that a single set of rules and regulations was necessary to comply with federal mandates. "We know we have to incorporate erosion control at a much higher level than we ever did before," Berling says. "Our concern is being able to get the required approvals, do the work, be done with the project, and move on, without projects getting tied up for months and months." Berling wanted to ensure that the regulations still allowed him to serve clients in a reasonable time frame, and without unnecessary constraints, because timing is everything when it comes to development. "We were invited to critique the regulations, and we were listened to collectively," he says. "There was a real effort to develop a set of regulations that would be palatable to the development community." Focus group participants also worked closely with the district to establish a permitting process for all land-disturbing activities greater than 1 acre. Before a permit is issued and any land disturbed, engineers or developers must submit a well-designed sediment and erosion control plan to the district for review and approval. "Our inspectors make sure controls are in place before land disturbance begins," Eger says. The development community, concerned about the need to begin work on purchased land as quickly as possible, asked for the option of a staged permitting process. Now, developers who install the proper sediment and erosion controls can get a clearing permit first and a grading permit second so that clearing and grading can be performed while engineers are finishing infrastructure designs. "The district has found ways to expedite the approval process," Berling says. "Now we know we need to get our sediment and erosion control done first, and our plans into a review process. It's a critical-path situation." Engineers and developers like Berling have taken advantage of district-sponsored workshops on sediment and erosion control, proper construction and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs), the plan review process, and land-disturbance permitting. "We went through the new rules page by page, and we had a chance to ask questions," Berling says. "The workshops helped us prepare to deal with the regulations, which are much more stringent than we've had in the past." To ensure that rules and regulations are enforced consistently and fairly throughout the region, the focus group said the district should be solely responsible for approving all land-disturbance activities, reviewing sediment and erosion control plans and design plans, and inspecting installed controls. If an inspector identifies a sediment and erosion control problem in the field, a quick phone call from the district's plan reviewer to the developer almost always resolves the problem. "We've issued only a few stop-work orders, usually to new players who didn't get a permit because they weren't familiar with the new regulations," Eger says. "We've taken a cooperative approach, which has been very well received by the engineering community." Credit Policy Focus Group The focus group worked with the district to recommend a credit policy giving commercial and industrial properties financial incentives for implementing stormwater BMPs that address water-quality and -quantity issues. These property owners can reduce their quarterly stormwater fees if they install district-approved BMPs, such as retention and detention basins, cisterns, dry ponds, filter strips, grassy swales, hydrodynamic separators, oil/grit separators, porous pavement, rainwater gardens, stormwater wetlands, vegetated rooftops, or wetponds. They also can earn credits for past stormwater management activities or installations. The district's utility is one of only a few in the nation offering water-quality-based credits, Spearman says. "The credit system came about because we wanted to promote BMPs," Carran explains. "We knew that if a nonresidential-property owner received financial incentives to install BMPs, the region would benefit in the long run." Legal Issues Focus Group "There are many variables," Eger says. "Everyone has a different idea of what defines the public system, and what assets ultimately will be transferred." He says the Legal Issues Focus Group will reconvene within a year to begin reexamining the issues, and attempt to reach consensus, so that stormwater assets can be transferred by 2008, the next permit cycle. Public Workshops Yeager says Ashley Development now installs more effective silt controls and leaves as many trees as possible on construction sites. "Not all of us fully comprehended what a poorly maintained site under construction could do to surrounding sites and our water supply," he notes. "We're more conscious now." Stormwater Advisory Committee "We believe the stakeholders and citizens should be ongoing partners in this effort," Eger says. "This is their program and utility. They helped shape it, and they will be invited to help improve it." Local Schools Teach Children About Water Quality But perhaps the most significant public education component has been the development of a five-hour elementary school curriculum on stormwater and water quality, which received the 2003 National Environmental Achievement Award in Public Information and Education from the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. Developed by the district and 13 local teachers for fourth and fifth graders, the curriculum has reached more than 5,000 students in its first year. More than 200 teachers have taught the intensive, hands-on lessons on topics such as watersheds, point-source and nonpoint-source pollution, erosion, wetlands, and BMPs. "Teachers love the curriculum, which we aligned with the state's core content standards that they have to teach anyway," says Sara Zepf, the district's community education manager. She adds that schools teaching the curriculum also benefit by paying reduced stormwater user fees. "This curriculum is appealing because we can relate it to real life," says DeAnna Poling, a fifth-grade science teacher at Beechgrove Elementary in Kenton County, whose students recently developed models of BMPs using clay and other materials. "One student created a porous surface in his model of a golf course, so that fertilizers and pesticides would seep into the ground instead of being transported in runoff after a storm. Because the lessons are hands on, the students are really learning. Now they know why you don't dump things in storm drains, and why you should take a Pooper Scooper with you when you walk your dog, and they're telling their parents and friends these things." Mary Beth Feldmann teaches fifth grade at A.J. Lindeman Elementary School, part of the Erlanger-Elsmere Independent School District. She says one of the curriculum's best activities is the home audit that students conduct with their families. "The children went home and examined the condition of their storm drains and looked in their garage for hazardous materials," Feldmann says. "After one boy told his dad that the oil leaking from their car would end up in the storm drain, his father made an appointment with a mechanic and got the leak fixed. Some kids even brought in before and after pictures." By partnering with local schools, Eger notes, the district is raising awareness of stormwater issues to a receptive and impressionable audience—children—who can have the greatest long-term impact on stormwater management and water quality. A Better System in the Future Such regional solutions—perhaps coordinated by the district, Berling suggests—also would require fewer inspections and less maintenance in the future. "Promoting regional controls is possible, but it requires foresight," he says. "Someone has to take the time and effort to walk outside and look at the big picture. If this approach expedites the approval process and saves developers money, they'll step up." A Model for Other Regions The district's approach to regionalizing stormwater management proves the power of the people—and the great progress that can be made when local governments cooperate, decision-makers accept additional responsibilities, and ordinary citizens are motivated to work with local leaders to shape policies and address water-quality and -quantity issues. Key stakeholder groups—such as engineers, developers, and local school systems—have embraced the principles of environmental protection and are now poised to move forward as partners with the district in achieving environmental protection goals for the region. "NPDES is here to stay," Eger says. "Meeting NPDES requirements with bare-bones programs and bare-bones funding is a temporary solution to solving a community's water-quality problems. Ultimately, if you don't put the necessary effort into public education and public involvement, and don't develop programs that address the intent of NPDES regulations and maximize benefits to the community, you'll end up spending more time and money down the road—either in fines, or in redoing what you've already done. For a marginal fee, we have a tremendous program that is producing real benefits in northern Kentucky." John Lyons, P.E., is director of stormwater management for Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky. Thomas M. Brankamp, P.E., is group manager for water management with Woolpert Inc. SW July/August 2005
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
Home
+ About + Subscribe
+ News + Calendar
+ Glossary Onsite
Water Treatment | Distributed
Energy | Erosion
Control | MSW
Management
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
