FRANKLIN COUNTY LID FIELD TRIP

Transkript

1 Workshop #2: Franklin County LID Field Trip & LID Technologies and Best Management Practices September 18, 2015 Millers River Watershed Council September 18, 2015 Funded through: EPA's Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant Program Administered by MassDEP 1 FRANKLIN COUNTY LID FIELD TRIP JWO Transit Center, Greenfield Olive St. Sidewalk Island Garden, Greenfield High School Rain Gardens, Greenfield Davis & Chapman St. Parking Lot, Greenfield Deerfield Academy Green Roof, Deerfield Unity Park, Montague Riverfront Park, Orange 2

2 WORKSHOP #2 AGENDA 4:00 pm: Welcome, Introductions & Recap of Workshop 1 Pat Smith, FRCOG 4:20 pm: LID Technologies and Best Management Practices Andrew Bohne RLA, LEED AP, New England Environmental 5:05 pm Break 5:15 pm: LID Cost/Benefit Analysis Ivan Ussach, MRWC 5:30 pm: Overview of Workshop 3 5:45 pm: Questions & Answers 3 PRESENTER: Patricia A. Smith Senior Land Use Planner Franklin Regional Council of Governments 4

3 PROJECT BACKGROUND Follow on to Eastern Millers River Watershed LID project conducted by Montachusett Regional Planning Commission (MRPC) and Millers River Watershed Council (MRWC) in Purpose: To provide LID education and technical assistance to develop LID bylaws/ordinances in Orange, Montague, Northfield, Warwick, Erving, Wendell, and New Salem Goal: To mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff in urban areas like Montague and Orange and encourage development that incorporates LID to protect the sensitive areas in the more rural areas of the watershed Funding provided through EPA's Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant Program, administered by MassDEP 5 WESTERN MILLERS LID PROJECT TASKS Updating Local Bylaws with LID Series of three (3) or more workshops for town officials, DPW staff, Planning Boards, Conservation Commissions, building inspectors, developers and local residents: (1) Introduction to Stormwater Management in the Millers River Watershed (2) LID Technologies and BMPs (3) LID Bylaw Development Field trip to view local LID installations (MRWC) Development of white papers on LID for general distribution and posting on websites 6

4 PROJECT TIMELINE Timeline: 24 month project Local Planning Board contacts began in Spring of 2014 Technical assistance on LID ordinance/bylaw development to Town Planning Boards to be provided throughout the term of the project Regional Workshops to be held in Summer/Fall of Low Impact Development (LID) and Best Management Practices USING LID DESIGN FEATURES TO HELP REDUCE A PROJECTS STORMWATER IMPACTS Andrew Bohne, RLA abohne@neeinc.com

5 What is Low Impact Development? EPA Definition LID is an approach to land development (or re-development) that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing effective imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage that treat stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product. There are many practices that have been used to adhere to these principles such as bio-retention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. By implementing LID principles and practices, water can be managed in a way that reduces the impact of built areas and promotes the natural movement of water within an ecosystem or watershed. Applied on a broad scale, LID can maintain or restore a watershed's hydrologic and ecological functions. LID has been characterized as a sustainable stormwater practice by the Water Environment Research Foundation and others. Land Use Changes Where does the water go?

6 LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Large Scale Urban Commercial LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Medium Scale Industrial Park Building

7 LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Institutional LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Medium Scale Office Park Building

8 LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Green Roof on Large Flat Roof Buildings LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Urban Settings

9 LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Urban Settings LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Urban Settings

10 LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Urban Settings LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Neighborhood Settings

11 LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Neighborhood Settings LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Single Family Rural Home

12 LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Single Family Suburban Home LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Single Family Suburban Home

13 LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Single Family Suburban Home Traditional Vs. LID Cul-De-Sacs

14 Traditional Vs. LID Residential Streets Traditional Vs. LID Paving

15 Traditional Vs. LID Swales Rain Gardens and Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Bio-Filter Wetland Basin In-Line Rain Gardens Overall Site Plan-Large Scale Commercial with LID Elements

16 Rain Gardens Typical Enlargement Planting Plan Rain Gardens Typical Cross Section

17 Rain Gardens Curb Cut Inlets Rain Gardens Rain Garden Soil Placement 70% Sand-20 Top Soil-10% Organic

18 Rain Gardens Rain Garden Heavy Organic Mulch Placement Rain Gardens Planted with Native Plants

19 Rain Gardens 3 River Stone Used at Curb Cuts Rain Gardens The Finished Product at Work

20 Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Site Plan Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Planted With Native Wetland Plants

21 Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Planted Side Slopes and Wetland Basin Floor Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Creating Micro-Topography and Incorporating Woody/Stone Debris for Habitat Value

22 Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Wetland Basins Add Habitat Natural Channel vs. Rip-Rap Channel Used in Urban and Rural Settings

23 Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools Channel Cross Sections for Large Scale Rural Camp Entry Road Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools Step Pool and Planting Plans

24 Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools Site Specific Layout Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools Step Pool and Channel Installation

25 Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools 6 Months after Installation Bio-Swale with Permanent Erosion Control Fabric Detail Cross Section

26 Bio-Swale with Permanent Erosion Control Fabric Grading and Fabric Installation Bio-Swale with Permanent Erosion Control Fabric Finished Product in Urban and Rural Context

27 Porous Paving, Bio-Swale, and Rain Garden Porous Paving Bio-Swale Rain Garden Medium Scale Industrial Park Porous Paving, Bio-Swale, and Rain Garden Details, Erosion Control, and Plant Lists

28 Porous Paving Grass Pavers Grass Pavers, Filled With Soil, Seeded, and Mulched Porous Paving Grass Pavers Grass Is Established and Open for Parking

29 Bio-Swale Removal of Existing Paved Swale Bio-Swale Installation of Permanent EC Fabric, Native Seeding Planting

30 Rain Garden Working With Existing Conditions For Proper Form and Function Rain Garden Planted with Native Vegetation

31 ECOLOGICAL DESIGN AND PLANNING Sustainable Design (GI) Amherst, MA ECOLOGICAL DESIGN AND PLANNING Sustainable Design (GI) Amherst, MA

32 ECOLOGICAL DESIGN AND PLANNING Sustainable Design (GI) Amherst, MA Concrete and Asphalt Vs Porous Paving Promote Infiltration

33 Concrete and Asphalt Vs Porous Paving Overflow Parking and Everyday Parking Concrete and Asphalt Vs Porous Paving Porous Concrete Travel Lane and Concrete Paver Parking Spaces

34 Concrete and Asphalt Vs Porous Paving UNH Stormwater Center It works in New England! Rain Gardens and Bio-Swales Overall Site Plan-Single Family Rural Home with LID Elements

35 Single Family Home LID Elements Rain Gardens and Bio-Swales Used to Collect Roof Runoff and Overland Sheet Flow Single Family Home LID Elements Rain Gardens and Bio-Swales Used to Collect Roof Runoff and Overland Sheet Flow

36 Single Family Home LID Elements Rain Gardens and Bio-Swales Used to Collect Roof Runoff and Overland Sheet Flow Hurricane Sandy, Irene and Tropical Storm Lee A Case Study of Flood Resiliency Planning - Southern Tier, NY

37 Sidney GreenPlain and Riverlea Farm Flood-safe Neighborhood

38

39

40 Riverlea Farm Conceptual Design Sidney s Solution: Riverlea Farm

41 Riverlea Farm Conceptual Design Single Family Cottage Riverlea Farm Conceptual Design Neighborhood Commercial

42 GreenPlain Conceptual Design Storage volume = a swimming pool the size of a football field that is 20 stories deep.

43 Sidney GreenPlain GreenPlain Conceptual Design Community Education, Arts, Historic & Performing Arts Center

44 GreenPlain Conceptual Design GreenPlain Conceptual Design Mitigation, Education & Recreation

45 GreenPlain Conceptual Design Habitat, Biodiversity & Eco- Tourism GreenPlain Conceptual Design Initial Planting

46 GreenPlain Conceptual Design 5-year Meadow Take it back and use it all to slow the water down and let it soak in!

47 Take it back and use it all to slow the water down and let it soak in!

48

49

50

51

52 Thanks you all for your time! Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Andrew Bohne, RLA New England Environmental, Inc Amherst, MA Concord, NH We all have the responsibility to make every project we work on as sustainable as possible. SECTION 319 STORMWATER WORKSHOP for the W. MILLERS RIVER WATERSHED Financial Benefits of Using LID for Stormwater Management Ivan Ussach, Watershed Coordinator Millers River Watershed Council Sept. 18, 2015 Greenfield, MA Healthy Rivers for Healthy Communities

53 In the vast majority of cases, the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that implementing well-chosen LID practices saves money for developers, property owners, and communities while also protecting and restoring water quality. Source: USEPA (2007): Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices Key Findings from the USEPA 2013 Case Study Economic Analyses: * LID Can Cost Less than Grey Infrastructure Alone * LID Approaches Result in Multiple Benefits * LID Approaches Can Be Successfully Integrated into Capital Improvement Programs * Economic Analyses can be used to Address Public Concerns and Gain Stakeholder Support Source: USEPA, 2013: Case Studies Analyzing the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Programs

54 This paper summarizes the findings of some recent studies of the economic benefits of LID. Such studies are relatively rare, especially those comparing LID and conventional development practices. The studies are divided into three sections: 1) New England case studies 2) nationwide case studies 3) additional studies I. NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Boulder Hills Pelham, NH Description: 24 unit condominium built on 14 acres of previously undeveloped land. LID Features: Roadway, all driveways and sidewalks built of porous asphalt. Additional benefits: Improved water quality and runoff volume reduction; less overall site disturbance (1.3 acres less); avoidance of wetland and flood-zone areas; reported cost savings for salt for winter ice management.

55 NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Boulder Hills Pelham, NH Stormwater management costs: Item Conventional LID Difference Site prep $23,200 $18,000 -$5,200 Erosion Control $75,800 $54,400 -$21,400 Drainage $92,400 $20,100 -$72,300 Roadway $82,000 $128,000 +$46,000 Driveways $19,700 $30,100 +$10,400 Curbing $6, $6,500 Additional $489,000 $489,000 0 Total SW Mgmt: $789,500 $740,300 -$49,128 (6%) Source: UNH Stormwater Center et al, 2011 NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Greenland Meadows Greenland, NH Description: 56 acre Retail shopping center site built in 2008 (25.6 acres impervious), with largest porous asphalt installation in northeast. LID Features: SW management system includes two porous asphalt installations covering 4.5 acres along with catch basins, sub-surface crushed stone reservoir, sand filter, and underground piping and catch basins. Additional: Site adjacent to EPA-listed impaired waterway; clay soils with very low permeability;

56 NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Greenland Meadows Greenland, NH Project costs: Item Conventional LID Difference Earthwork $2,174,500 $2,103,500 -$71,000 Paving $1,843,500 $2,727,500 +$$884,000 SW mgmt. $2,751,800 $1,008,800 -$1,743,000 (Other project costs same) Total: $6,769,800 $5,839,800 -$930,000 (26%) Overall SW mgmt. costs lower by $930,000 (26 percent); main savings was $1,356,800 for large diameter piping. Source: UNH Stormwater Center et al, 2011 NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Comparison of Maintenance Costs for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management BACKGROUND: Researchers from the Stormwater Center at UNH and colleagues at examined seven different types of stormwater control measures for the first 2 4 years of operations and studied maintenance demands in the context of personnel hours, costs, and system pollutant removal. The systems were located at a field facility designed to distribute stormwater in parallel in order to normalize watershed characteristics including pollutant loading, sizing, and rainfall. System maintenance demand was tracked for each system and included materials, labor, activities, maintenance type, and complexity.

57 NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Comparison of Maintenance Costs for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management RESULTS (from Abstract of published paper): Annualized maintenance costs ranged from $2,280=ha=year for a vegetated swale to $7,830=ha=year for a wet pond. In terms of mass pollutant load reductions, marginal maintenance costs ranged from $4 $8 per kg per year TSS removed for porous asphalt, a vegetated swale, bioretention, and a subsurface gravel wetland, to $11 $21/kg/year TSS removed for a wet pond, a dry pond, and a sand filter system. Source: J. Houle, R. Roseen et. al., 2013 NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Comparison of Maintenance Costs for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management RESULTS (continued from Abstract): The results of this study indicate that generally, LID systems, compared to conventional pond systems, do not have greater annual maintenance costs and, in most cases, have lower marginal maintenance burdens (as measured by cost and personnel hours) and higher water quality treatment capabilities as a function of pollutant removal performance. When nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus were considered, maintenance costs per kg per year removed ranged from reasonable to cost-prohibitive.

58 II. NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES This section draws on two EPA studies from 2007 and The 2007 EPA report summarized 17 case studies of developments mostly residential subdivisions--that include LID practices. These examples were selected on the basis of the quantity and quality of economic data, quantifiable impacts, and types of LID practices used. Of those 17 studies, 12 studies had sufficient economic data to allow for comparison of conventional SW Mgmt. v. LID. Savings ranged from 15-80%, and $3,400 - $785,000, and one project had higher costs of $737,200 (96%). Several of these studies, providing a range in geography and project type, are described below. NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: 2nd Avenue SEA Street Seattle, WA Description: LID Redesign of entire 660 foot residential block LID Features: Bioretention, Reduced Impervious Area, Swales LID cost: $651,548 - $ savings of $217, 255 (25%) (Narrower street width and fewer sidewalks reduced paving costs by 49%.) Additional benefits: Monitoring showed 99% reduction in surface runoff

59 NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Gap Creek Sherwood, Ark. Description: LID Residential subdivision (clustered) LID Features: Reduced impervious area, Vegetated landscaping LID cost: $3,942,100 - $ savings of $678,500 (15%) (Developers added 17 more lots; lots sold for $3,000 more and cost $4,800 less to develop than comparable conventional lots; developer s additional profit 2.2$M) Additional benefits: open space increased from 1.5 to 23.5 acres. NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Tellabs Corp. Campus Naperville, Ill. Description: 55-acre site with more than 330,000 square feet of office space, conservation design LID Features: Bioretention, Swales LID cost: $2,700,650 - $ savings of $461,510 (15%) Additional benefits: 6 fewer acres were disturbed

60 NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Somerset Prince Georges County, MD. Description: 80-acre subdivision with nearly 200 house lots--approx. half built with LID, half conventional LID Features: Bioretention, Swales LID cost: $1,671,461 - $ savings of $785,382 (32%) Additional benefits: Eliminating need for stormwater retention pond created space for six additional lots; LID area had less runoff and lower concentrations of metals in runoff. NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES The 2013 EPA Report includes 13 detailed case studies based on one or more of various economic analyses. The 13 case studies were selected from the 45 community LID projects that EPA evaluated, and were selected to represent various types of economic analyses and LID programs, as well as a broad geographic and demographic range. Of the 13 published in the report, several are selected here to indicate the variety of projects and economic analyses undertaken.

61 NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Green Streets Pilot City of West Union, Iowa Description: Includes the renovation of six downtown blocks. The life-cycle costs (the total capital and O&M costs for the project) of a permeable paver system in the downtown area were compared with those of traditional bituminous or Portland cement concrete pavement. $ Results: While permeable pavement is initially more expensive, lower maintenance and repair costs will result in cost savings in the long run. The city would begin to realize these cost savings by year 15 of the project. Estimated cumulative savings over a 57-year period were calculated to amount to about $2.5 million. Other benefits: reduced flooding and water quality improvement from permeable pavements, biofiltration, and rain gardens. NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Capitol Region Watershed District - Minnesota Description: The CRWD is almost completely developed 42% covered by impervious surfaces. Water quality is impaired and there is localized flooding. In addition, aging sewer infrastructure has caused drainage problems and sewer overflows to Lake Como. $ Results: A new storm sewer for conveying untreated, frequent floodwaters to Lake Como was estimated to cost $2.5 million compared to $2.0 million to implement LID infiltration practices. Other benefits: The 18 SW BMPs provide high SW volume-reduction and pollutant-removal efficiencies; improved the quality of an economically important, nutrient-impaired recreational lake; the City of St. Paul now uses a similar design for under-the-street infiltration trenches for street reconstruction projects.

62 NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Ecoroof Program City of Portland, OR Description: The Ecoroof program is one of several sustainable SW mgmt. systems used to treat 10 billion gal. of annual SW runoff. $ Results: For the public, ecoroof construction provides both an immediate and a long-term benefit; the net present benefit is $101,660 at year 5 and $191,421 at year 40. For building owners, benefits do not exceed costs until year 20--when conventional roofs need replacement. Over the 40-year life of an ecoroof, the net present benefit to private stakeholders is more than $400,000. Other benefits: Numerous benefits were identified (incl. reduced O & M costs, carbon reduction, improved air quality). Some were quantified and/or monetized as part of a full benefit-cost analysis that showed a public economic benefit. NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Rain to Recreation Program - City of Lenexa, KS Description: Much of the city s 34-square-mile area is experiencing development pressure. The city s Rain to Recreation program includes regulatory and non-regulatory components. $ Results: Substantial cost savings associated with implementing LID/GI-oriented BMPs for multi-family, commercial, and warehouse developments in contrast to traditional stormwater management approaches using grey infrastructure. Other benefits: Reduced flooding, improved water quality and habitat, additional recreational opportunities.

63 III. ADDITIONAL STUDIES Several other studies from the literature documenting various kinds of economic benefits from LID projects are briefly summarized below. * In Frederick County, Maryland, several cost-saving benefits were realized by redesigning a conventional subdivision with LID designs. These included eliminating two stormwater ponds, which reduced infrastructure cost by roughly $200,000; increasing the number of buildable lots from 68 to 70, which added roughly $90,000 in value; and allowing the site design to preserve around 50 percent of the site in undisturbed wooded condition, which reduced clearing and grubbing costs by $160,000 (Clar, 2003). ADDITIONAL STUDIES An infill site in northern Virginia saved over 50 percent in infrastructure cost by minimizing impervious surfaces, protecting sensitive areas, treating stormwater at the source, and reducing setback requirements. (CWP et al, 2001). In the Village Homes LID development in Davis, CA, natural vegetation and reduced pavement area helped lower home cooling expenses and energy bills by percent as compared to surrounding neighborhoods (MacMullan, 2007). In Dane County, WI, permit fees for development are calculated according to the amount of impervious area in a site, providing developers with an incentive to use LID to reduce permitting fees. (UNH Stormwater Center, 2011)

64 ADDITIONAL STUDIES An analysis of 184 lots in South Kingstown, Rhode Island found that conservation subdivisions were more profitable than conventional subdivisions. Lots in the conservation subdivisions cost an average of $7,000 less to produce. Those lots had a 50 percent decrease in selling time, and were valued at from 12 to 16 percent higher than lots in conventional subdivisions (Mohamed, 2006). A retrofit at a UNH - Durham campus parking involved installation of a bioretention system within the vegetated median and subsequently connecting the system directly to an adjacent train of LID drainage infrastructure. Total project cost per acre of impervious cover was $14,000. With labor and install provided by UNH staff, costs were limited to materials and plantings at $5,500 per acre of impervious cover. References: Clar, M. Case Study: Pembrook Woods LID Development Residential Subdivision, Ecosite, Inc., 2003 Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) and VA Department of Conservation, The Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginia s Streams, Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginia, 2001 City of Portland, Summary of Cost Benefit Evaluation of Ecoroofs Report, November 2008 Houle, J. and Roseen, R. et al., Comparison of Maintenance Cost, Labor Demands, and System Performance for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management, Journal of Environmental Engineering, July 2013

65 References: MacMullan, E., Using Incentives to Promote Green Infrastructure, 2009 Stormwater Summit, Oregon ACWA MacMullan, E., Economics of LID, EcoNorthwest, Eugene, OR., 2007 Mohamed, R., Economics of Conservation Subdivisions, Urban Affairs Review, 41 # 3, 2006 Roseen, R. and Janeski, T. et. al., Economic and Adaptation Benefits of Low Impact Development, Conference Proceedings, 2011 Low Impact Development Symposium, Philadelphia, PA References: UNH Stormwater Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Antioch University New England, Forging the Links: Linking the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Community Decisions, 2011 USEPA, Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices, 2007 USEPA, Case Studies Analyzing the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Programs, EPA 841-R , August 2013

66 Millers River Watershed Council 100 Main Street, Athol, MA millerswatershed.org Ivan Ussach, Watershed Coordinator Workshop #3: October 29, 2015 LID Bylaw Development with Deborah Shriver Water Resource Planning & Protection Consultant SAVE THE DATE! 10

67 QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? The Franklin Regional Council of Governments would like to thank the Montachusett Regional Planning Agency (MRPC) for its assistance in providing background materials on the Eastern Millers River Watershed LID project, which have been used extensively in the development of this presentation. 11 CONTACTS Kimberly Noake MacPhee Land Use/Natural Resources Program Manager Franklin Regional Council of Governments 12 Olive Street, Suite 2 Greenfield, MA , ext. 130 kmacphee@frcog.org Ivan Ussach, MPH Watershed Coordinator Millers River Watershed Council Millers River Environmental Center 100 Main St., Athol, MA ivan@millersriver.net Patricia A. Smith Senior Land Use Planner Franklin Regional Council of Governments 12 Olive Street, Suite 2 Greenfield, MA , ext. 134 psmith@frcog.org 12