How will the Integrated Planning Approach Affect your Long Term Control Plan?

Vijesh Karatt Vellatt, P.E., LEED APRebecca Schaefer, P.E.

Agenda

Background Concept Considerations Elements Implementation

BackgroundDriver Balance water quality needs with limited

resources Regulatory agencies original focus on

CSOs/SSOs EPA to consider funding constraints and

more water quality demands than CSO/SSO control

BackgroundHistory

1989 –

EPA issues

CSO Strateg

y

1994 –

EPA issues

CSO Control P

olicy

1997 –

EPA publishes

Financia

l

Capab

ility Guidan

ce

2011 –

EPA in

troduc

ed In

tegrat

ed

Planning

1995 –

EPA publishes

LTCP

Guidance

2012 –

EPA pub

lished

Integ

rated

Planning

Framew

ork

ConceptPrioritize Based on Water Quality

Ord

er o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

CSOSSO

Facility Renewal

Sewer

WRRF

Integrated Plan

Current Regulatory Drivers

MS4

TMDL

Future Drivers

Concept

CSOSSO

MS4

TMDL

WRRF Renewal

Sewer Renewal

LTCP

Integrated Plan

Concept

An Integrated Plan may: Affect schedule duration Change order of project implementation

An Integrated Plan will not: Replace a LTCP Reduce investment in water quality Reduce level of CSO/SSO control

ConsiderationsDo you need more time to

implement your program?

Is LTCP taking undue priority over facility renewal?

Are there other Water Quality programs on

horizon?

Start Integrated Planning Process

Community Values

Capital Needs(i.e. List of Projects)

Quantify Project Benefits

Prioritization/ Ranking Criteria

Define Affordability Criteria

Implementation Schedule

Considerations

Start Integrated Planning Process

Community Values

Capital Needs(i.e. List of Projects)

Quantify Project Benefits

Prioritization/ Ranking Criteria

Define Affordability Criteria

Implementation Schedule

Health, Safety, Flood Control, Reduce Overflows, System Renewal, Service Reliability, etc

Projects with Capital Costs, O&M Costs, Life Cycle Evaluations

Identify project benefits. Preferable if one project has multiple benefits (i.e. flood control and CSO Reduction)

Develop criteria based on Community Values to assign relative importance

Include Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater costs into affordability. Evaluate using census track data across municipality (identify impact on range of neighborhoods).

Implement in NPDES permits with 5-year terms provides adaptability as conditions change.Realistic Schedule with Quantifiable Community Benefits.

Advantages/Disadvantages

Advantages More water quality benefit faster More cost effective program

Disadvantages Time/cost to support proposed integrated

plan Inclusion of other water quality needs in

enforceable document

Integrated Plan ElementsEPA Framework1. Water Quality, Human Health and Regulatory Issues

2. Existing Systems and Performance

3. Stakeholder Involvement

4. Evaluating and Selecting Alternatives

5. Measuring Success

6. Improvements to the Integrated Plan

Integrated Plan Elements1: Water Quality, Human Health and Regulatory Issues

Understand benefits of plan components as well as LTCP components Water Quality Human Health Regulatory

Integrated Plan Elements 2: Existing Systems and Performance

Integrated Plan Elements 3: Stakeholder Involvement

Expanding LTCP stakeholder involvement to broader areas

Integrated Plan Elements 4: Evaluating and Selecting Alternatives

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

3%

4%

6%

8%

12%

15%

20%

32% Customer Satisfaction

Flooding

O&M Cost

Quality of Life

Job Creation

Air Quality

Nitrogen Reduction

Bacteria Reduction

Integrated Plan Elements 4: Evaluating and Selecting Alternatives

Financial Capability Assessment Set implementation priorities and schedule

Project WQ BenefitHuman Health Benefit

CapitalCost

Community Benefit Score

CSO A

WRRF

CSO B

Flood ControlTMDL

Prioritization Matrix

Integrated Plan Elements 5: Measuring Success

Post-construction monitoring Quantifying expectations and results

Integrated Plan Elements 6: Improvements to the Integrated Plan

Updating/modifying plan based on lessons learned

ImplementationCollaborative Effort

ImplementationWho is pursuing integrated planning?

Seattle, WA King County, WA Cincinnati, OH Evansville, IN Springfield, MO Columbus, OH DC Water

ImplementationLessons Learned IP means something different to all Community is the drive – It won’t work otherwise Need “control” over what you have included

(commitments will be binding) Be realistic regarding the added risk being accepted “Better” solution not cost savings Documentation required (but not a document)

Questions?

Contact:Vijesh Karattvkarattvellatt@greeley-hansen.com111 Broadway, Suite 2101, NY 10006