Stormwater Commission

STORMWATER COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY Friday, March 6, 2009 The following persons were present: Richard Wlodarski, Scott Jochim, Mousa Nazzal, Andrew Vitale, Acting Mayor Callero, Chuck Ostman, George Van Geem, Trustee Lo Verde, and Steven Vinezeano. Also in attendance were Richard Rice and John Ferris of Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Group. I. Introductions and Opening: Steven Vinezeano introduced Richard and John from Shaw Environmental. It was explained to the Commission that Shaw Environmental was contacted by the Assistant Manager (through a recommendation of the Lt. Gov. Office). The firm has taken time to provide some “free” guidance on the project and an understanding stormwater issues. II. PowerPoint on Survey Data: Initial survey data collection has allowed GIS to develop some maps depicting flood zones or “hot spots.” The first map shows the parts of Niles most impacted (using 286/362 surveys) during the September Flood. The second map shows the parts of Niles most impacted (223/362) during the September Flood via sewers. The third map shows the parts of Niles most impacted (317/362) from “ever” flooding. The fourth map shows the parts of Niles flooded 3 or more times in ten years (126/362). This created “focus zones” and the zone to the south east of Maryhill cemetery was chosen for a closer look (the fifth map). The Commission discussed how to get “an arm around” the issues. This is a regional and a local issue, but how much is local? Even if it is regional, when would MWRDGC even finish the McCook Reservoir – 2015? Every town in the area has the same regional and local issues. The Commission needs to decipher what is regional and what is local and do what it can to make recommendations that may reduce local flooding incidents. III. Presentation by Shaw Environmental: Shaw Environmental shared a presentation titled, “Finding Solutions To Your Flooding Problems – Developing a Business Plan”. The presentation was a very valuable outline for the Commission to follow in the process of conducting the study. The presentation explained that the Commission was on the right track identifying all of the issues and problem spots. Once this data collection is complete, the Commission must go deeper by determining system capacity issues with computer modeling. Once the problems along the system are identified and technical data is available from engineering study, alternatives can be considered. Pipe size, storage, flow restriction, and green infrastructure was outlined. Green infrastructure was discussed as a true option for reducing the “peak flow” that causes most systems to charge and flood basements. Green infrastructure is also a cheaper alternative to an expensive sewer system improvement. When Shaw Environmental departed, the Commission discussed the presentation. Trustee Lo Verde was concerned that Shaw Environmental was only interested in placing green infrastructure on side streets, which would not work to prevent large flooding issues. It was discussed that the green infrastructure was simply to be used in concert with larger sewer improvements. It allowed the sewer system being placed to be made smaller due to reduced peak flow taking away by the green infrastructure. IV. What is the Next Step?: It was discussed that additional stormwater data is being worked on by GIS. The Commission may soon review the following data on maps: 1. street flooding; 2. yard flooding; 3. data on existing sewer concerns; 4. sewer mapping for “focus zones”; 5. data on new construction concerns (new home construction/alley construction); 6. homes with sewer backup; and 7. homes with spouts/sumps still connected to sewer. The Commission discussed that as we move forward and visit more and more sites, that we must tackle maintenance issues immediately and identify and record repeating chronic issues. V. Next Scheduled Meeting: TBA.