BSR Water | WP 4 | A.4.4.

Surveys on Stormwater Policies and Implementing Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management: Key Findings

Nika Kotoviča | Jurijs Kondratenko City Development Department of the Riga City Council

Helsinki, March 10th, 2020 BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 2 Survey on Implementing Stormwater- Related Legal Review in the BSR BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 3 Stormwater Management Framework

Stormwater management framework in the EU:

➔EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) ➔EU Urban Wastewater Directive 91/271/EEC (UWD) ➔EU Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD) BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 4 Stormwater Management Framework EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD): ➔ Sets out that good ecological conditions must be achieved in all water bodies; ➔ river basin management plans (RBDP) must be developed for water catchment areas; ➔ Defines costs recovery principles for water/wastewater services. Stormwater is (almost) not addressed by the WDF (unless relevant for water body status). Payment for drainage of stormwater into separate system is not regulated, leaving it up to the Member States! Changes likely due to smaller delineated basins. BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 5 Stormwater Management Framework

EU Urban Wastewater Directive 91/271/EEC (UWD) ➔ Refers to collection, purification and discharge of domestic wastewater, mixture of wastewater and wastewater from certain industrial sectors; ➔ Prescribes that river basin management measures must be integrated in development of the river basin management plans (RBDP) Stormwater is addressed by the UWD only in the context of combined system and combined sewer overflows. BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 6 Stormwater Management Framework EU Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD) ➔ Instructs to take a preliminary flood risk assessment in the entire Member State territory as a groundwork to determine the flood hazard territories and to prepare flood risk management plans for each river basin area FD does not refer specifically to stormwater; it is considered as one source of risk. Risk assessment is left to the member states and is difficult due to high level of detail when stormwater flooding is concerned. Changes likely due to EC pressure for smaller delineated basins. BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 7 Slide on Example of Catchment Basins around Riga BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 8 Stormwater Management Framework

➔ New EU-level regulation is not likely, however WFD and FD implementation will at some point (when?) reach down to the stormwater catchment basins due to more detailed delineation of them (the catchment basins) So the catchment basin plans are inevitable, the question is about prioritisation (high risk areas, ROI compared to other municipal/state level investments, and other). BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 9 Legal Review ➔ National legislation in the BSR sets out quality requirements for wastewater treatment and monitoring, ensuring that the surface water bodies and groundwaters are kept in good condition. However, such binding regulations explicitly refer only to those stormwaters entering the sewerage systems, either combined stormwater and household wastewater systems or separate, pipe-based stormwater drainage systems. Thus, none, or not enough attention is paid to open, nature-based, on-source stormwater drainage solutions. BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 10 Legal Review

➔ Forerunning municipalities - Copenhagen, Berlin, Malmö and Helsinki - have adopted guidelines for stormwater drainage and treatment, among other, prioritizing infiltration and retention of stormwater at the source... … contrary to conventional practice to convey stormwater into wastewater sewers, paying much attention to tackling extreme storm events and to mitigating the effects of climate change. Still, in the majority of the BSR countries old-fashioned, conventional stormwater management approach prevails… BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 11 Stormwater Management Approaches…

Recommendatory SW planning vs Regulated SW planning BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 12 … at National / Municipal Level

➔ Return periods for stormwater design ➔ Frequency of flooding allowed ➔ Treatment requirements ➔ Pollutant limit values BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 13 Survey on Implementing Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management 14 Cities Interviewed 15 Cities Interviewed BY • Molodechno LT DE • Kaunas • Aalborg PL • Copenhagen • Elbląg • Aarhus • Warszawa EE RU • Tartu • St.Petersburg FI • • Helsinki • • Kuopio • Zelenogradsk • Lahti • Svetlogorsk • Turku • Pionersky LV SE • Liepāja • Stockholm • Daugavpils • Växjö • Jelgava NO • Rīga • Royken BSR Water | 2nd Partner Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 10-11.03.2020 16 Questionnaire analysis – respondents description 22 cities and towns: • 6 from • 4 from Finland and Latvia • 2 from Denmark and • 1 from Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania and Median size 113 km2, median population 117 thousand people Median average annual precipitation 687 mm, temperature 7oC Mostly medium density of non-permeable/semi-permeable surfaces (between 25 and 50%) All but two cities have had stormwater-caused floods in last 10 years 17 Climate Change Adaptation Plans 12 cities have indicated some sort of adaptation plan, 10 do not Pioneers: comprehensive multi-sector plans looking at risks, impacts and measures across entire spectrum, incl. stormwater, green infrastructure as an integral part: ➔ Copenhagen climate change adaptation plan Different levels of scale and level of integration ➔ Helsinki extensive planning • Helsinki climate adaptation guidelines 2019-2025 • City of Helsinki Storm Water management programme • City of Helsinki Flood strategy ➔ Stockholm action programme on climate change adaptation ➔ Växjö – comprehensive climate change adaptation plan and stormwater policy ➔ Elbląg climate adaptation plan 2030 is a comprehensive plan, stormwater is one topic 18 Climate Change Adaptation Plans

Followers: ➔ Riga both fluvial and pluvial flooding, action of measures formulated for fluvial only ➔ Liepaja: flood risk management plan (fluvial flooding) ➔ Tartu energy and climate action plan focuses on energy and transport, less on adaptation ➔ St. Petersburg – declared having included climate adaptation into the city development strategy and water supply and sewerage planning documents, but no evidence of specific plans or actions relevant for sustainable stormwater management 19 State of the System

➔ Most cities (13) have both combined and separated systems, 3 have only combined system, 6 have only separated system

➔ 12 cities strive for completely separated system, 5 do not 20 Green Techniques (SUDS/LID)

➔ Most cities (14) indicated applying on-site SUDS, however not so widespread yet: First pilots: 3 1-6 applications: 6 6-20 applications: 3 Common practice: 2 21 Catchment Basin Management Plans

➔ 13 cities have indicated having them, 8 not ➔ only 3 cities have plans for all basins ➔ 8 have plan for general water catchment basin ➔ 3 have plans for at least one sub-basin 22 Stormwater Treatment

➔ 7-11 cities have indicated separate treatment of highly contaminated stormwater lead to WWTP (however different cities meant different things, from roadside stormwater receivers to special facilities) ➔ Most often IF stormwater is treated (industrial areas, streets), it is done in special stormwater treatment facilities that then discharge to the environment/combined sewer ➔ Still a big issue - treatment of street stormwater 23 Stormwater Sewer Design for Extreme Events

➔ Only 7 cities indicated sewers being designed for extreme event in all (3) or newly developed areas (4) ➔ Return period of the design event is mostly 10 years, in 2 cases - 25 years ➔ Comment: more pressure in densely built areas where difficult to provide space for SUDS 24 Stormwater Regulations

➔ Surprise 1: 9 cities have indicated NO regulations

➔ Surprise 2: 15 cities DO have stormwater fee (the devil must be in the details) - Connection fee; - Fee per m3 of discharge (combined/separate); - Fee per m2 of surface area; - Fee differentiated per type of property. 25 Development of the Stormwater System

➔ Half of the cities have done baseline assessment of stormwater management systems ➔ Only half of these have used hydrologic and hydraulic modelling to determine capacity of the system and flooding risks ➔ Others - assessed treatment quality / technical inspection /institutional structures 26 Main Problems/Challenges with the Stormwater Management System

➔ Lack of capacity in existing system/flooding and lack of space for expansion ➔ Need for more integration and effective management structures Cities where the stormwater system is managed by the water-&-sewage company seem to do better! ➔ Lack of knowledge 27 Main Problems/Challenges with the Stormwater Management System

➔ No systemic water quality monitoring / poor water quality / foul connections ➔ Need to disconnect properties from the combined system ➔ Lack of finance 28 Main Barriers for Improving the System

➔ Lack of finance (even in ‘rich’ cities) ➔ Retrofitting is challenging (space, access) ➔ Low on political agenda ➔ Lack of a good collaboration model among different city departments and with other stakeholders ➔ Lack of knowledge… still present in all interviewed cities (!) ➔ Lack of quality control systems for dense urban areas 29 Who Manages the System

➔ 9 cities indicated having an integrated stormwater management plan/strategy ➔ In 13 cities who answered the questions, in most both water-&-sewage company (11) and municipality (9) is involved in stormwater management ➔ Most often water companies and municipalities both own and operate stormwater systems, in rare cases water companies operate municipality’s owned system ➔ In some cities pipe systems are owned and managed by the water company, open techniques - by the municipality 30 Evolution of the Management System

➔ Water-&-sewage company only ➔ Water-&-sewage company and infrastructure departments of municipalities ➔ Water-&-sewage company, infrastructure departments, street and parks departments, planning department ➔ Challenge of integrated management: lack of resources / knowledge due to non-core competence 31 The ISWM

➔ 9 municipalities made the decision to develop ISWM ➔ 7 municipalities have cross-departmental teams ➔ 10 have defined the vision, objectives and expectations for ISWM ➔ Most have indicated that more knowledge and capacity building is needed to develop ISWM (mostly on design, construction, maintenance and impact of SUDS/NWRM, as well as integration of pipe systems with open systems and spaces, like modelling) 32 Institutions Involved in the ISWM

➔ Environmental department ➔ Respective infrastructure departments ➔ Urban planning department ➔ Building control ➔ City survey (property department) ➔ Traffic, streets department ➔ Parks and green areas department ➔ Water-&-sewage company ➔ Construction contracting ➔ Rescue services ➔ Research institutions The ISWM - continued 33

➔ Only 2 municipalities indicated having adequate financial resources for ISWM system ➔ 7 municipalities are or planning to monitor implementation of ISWM ➔ Even pioneers in ISWM are not completely content (usual suspect: space, money, political importance, lack of integration, lack of knowledge) ➔ Suggestion about binding EU legislation ➔ Need for cooperation with state level authorities responsible for WFD/FD Stormwater Planning Tools 34

➔ 10 municipalities have them, mostly recommended rather than binding ➔ Existing tools include Minimum elevation requirement Requirement to place SUDS whenever possible Green Area Factor tool Design specification taking into account discharge limitations Flood risk assessment/stormwater plan by the developer Stormwater fee ➔ Other plan to implement, more knowledge needed, same barriers (incl. conflict with land owners) 35 Stormwater Quality

➔ 13 municipalities indicated national law regulating stormwater quality, 9 local regulations (3 cases both national law and local regulations) ➔ Local regulations mainly concern industrial and traffic areas and constructions sites, no infiltration in high risk areas ➔ Measures for stormwater quality management SUDS / NWRM Grey treatment techniques (sedimentation / oil separators) Pollution permits with allowed concentrations Stormwater quality monitoring, modelling and risk assessment 36 Stormwater Quality

➔ Stormwater quality monitoring - in 13 municipalities ➔ Monitoring mostly at discharge points, as well as often in industrial sites/parking lots and other areas of potential risk ➔ Most popular frequency once a month/after each storm (one municipality even once a week within a project) ➔ Nearly half municipalities monitor water quality based on land use (but most often uniform quality requirements) 37 Stormwater Quality

➔ 9 municipalities have identified high risk areas: High traffic and industrial areas Construction sites Zinc/copper roofs 38 Stormwater Quality: Monitored Substances

Suspended solids 12 Nutrients (phosphorus, etc.) 9 Organic substances (oil, fats, PAH etc.) 9 Heavy metals 8 Turbidity 6 Conductivity 5 Other physiochemical parameters (colour, 5 odours etc.) Other emerging or priority substances 5 39 Stormwater Quality: Monitored Substances

Chloride 4

Pathogens (e-coli, etc.) 4

Microplastics 2

Pesticides 1

Macro plastics 1

De-icing chemicals 0 40 Stormwater Quality

➔ Limit values in 12 municipalities ➔ SUDS/NWRMs mostly not monitored ➔ Only 10 municipalities have implemented SUDS to improve water quality ➔ 10 municipalities have regulations/instructions for stormwater from specific land uses 41 Main Barriers to Stormwater Monitoring

➔ Concentrations highly variable, flow highly variable, challenges for monitoring ➔ Lack of money ➔ Lack of info (risk areas, land use impact) ➔ Lack of capacity; ➔ Division of responsibilities with the state 42 Stormwater Quality: Future

➔ Nearly all municipalities indicated the need to work more with: Monitoring per se High risk area definition / cost efficiency Continuous and long-term monitoring Stormwater Management in General: 43 Most Urgent Issues

➔ Capacity in dense urban areas ➔ Money and cost efficiency ➔ Timely planning ➔ Water quality Nika Kotoviča BSR Water Project Coordinator City Development Department of the Riga City Council Mob. phone + 371 2922 6404 E-mail: [email protected] BSR Water Jurijs Kondratenko Stormwater Expert Mob. phone + 371 2834 9594 E-mail: [email protected]