0
Low Impact
Development and
Green Strategies
 for Regulatory
Compliance and
    Resource
   Protection
       Low Impact De...
CHAPTER 26 CFR - WATER POLLUTION
                 PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I - RESEARCH AND RELATED
PROGRAMS
•§ 1...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Regulations and Resource Protection
           Low Impact Development Center 2007
Environmental                              Environmental
  Interests                                  Interests
     $
   ...
Low Impact Development
Major Components
1. Conservation (Watershed and Site Level )
2. Minimization (Site Level)
3. Strate...
Key LID Principles “Volume”
and Water Balance
to Achieve Objectives
    Unique Watershed Design


        Match Initial A...
1. Conservation Plans / Regulations
    Local Watershed and Conservation Plans

        Forest (Contiguous and Interior H...
2. Minimize Impacts
                                         Low Im pact Design
                                          ...
3. Maintain Time of Concentration
    and Watershed Patterns

    Open Drainage


    Use green space


    Flatten slop...
4. Storage, Detention & Filtration
                 “LID IMP’s”
   Uniform Distribution at the Source
         Open drain...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
5. Pollution Prevention
30 - 40% Reduction in N&P
Kettering Demonstration Project


    Maintenance


    Proper use, han...
LID is Not
    A land use or zoning control


    An either this or that approach


    Independent of watershed plannin...
Stormwater
Drinking Water
        LID is a Holistic
           Integrated
           Approach

          Wastewater
      ...
N2                          AIR                            NH3

                                  Where did it all start?
...
High Rate
Bio-filtration

                 Low Impact Development Center 2007
AIR
                      N2                                                                     NH3
    DENITRIFICATION  ...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Bioretention
 California




    Low Impact Development Center 2007
“Traditional” Stormwater Issues




                                Non-Point Runoff




  Volume

                       ...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Traditional Urban                           Sustainable Urban
    Drainage                                    Drainage

  ...
Conventional - 70’s
    70’s Flood Control

    Approach Single Event
    Risk based storms (2-

    year, 10-year, 100-...
Predictable “Simple” Processes




           β
        K=      2/3
             AR
           n
         Low Impact Devel...
80’s/90’s
    70’s Flood Control Approach

    Single event
    Risk based storms (2-year,

    10-year, 100-year)
    S...
Today
    Moving towards Tributary

    Strategies
    Loadings and Limits (303d)


    Site Design Models don’t link

...
THE Difference
          Q = CIA


     ∫ C (t )Q(t )dt
  C=
        ∫ Q(t )dt
Is this state-of-the-art?
     Low Impact D...
Courtesy Geoanalysis
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Courtesy Wong, 2001
Effective Work Index (W)

                                 Range of
                                 Geomorphically
      ...
Smart Growth/LID Hydrology
    Are the Metrics and Protocols Right?


    Control Runoff at Microwatershed Level


    C...
Incorporated into Master Plan
   Low Impact Development Center 2007
Metro West
Illustrative
    Plan




           Low Impact Development Center 2007
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Emeryville
Land Use Change is a
better indicator!



        Low Impact Development Center 2007
Issues
    Where is a watershed with less than 10%

    imperviousness?
    Methods


    Scale and location in watershe...
Compacted
Dysfunctional
Soils




           Low Impact Development Center 2007
Lawn Soil Compaction

                                              Compaction (Mpa)
                             0.00    ...
Reston Watershed
Management Planning




     Low Impact Development Center 2007
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Buttermilk off North Shore                         Buttermilk off Ring Road




                      Low Impact Developme...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Stormwater Ponds:
 Valuable Wildlife Habitat?




        Low Impact Development Center 2007
TMDL Goose



             Low Impact Development Center 2007
B-IBI w/BMPs         B-IBI w/o BMPs

                    45
                    40
                    35
                ...
Figure 1. Comparison of Habitat Condition and

                                                                           ...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Where are the watershed
functions?Low Impact Development Center 2007
Low Impact Development Center 2007
The Future of the Urban America
        Low Impact Development Center 2007
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Maintenance and Inspection



                                               • Safety
                                    ...
Maintenance




                                               Pond Liabilities
Limitations                               ...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Cost/Effectiveness
A bioretention pond costs
$2,000 to construct for a ½ site.
So it costs $4,000 per acre.

  MC = c IJ +...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
BMP Removal Efficiency?
   Low Impact Development Center 2007
Ecological Integrity
  New Objectives
                                                Protection
                         ...
General Assumptions!
    For the foreseeable future, urbanization will continue

    mostly in the same patterns as today...
General Assumptions!
    Our environmental technological challenge is

    to integrate development into the ecosystem
  ...
Paradigm Shifts

    Watersheds to Ecosystems


    Flow Centric to Volume Centric


    Centralized Control to Decentra...
Important Concepts
    Terrestrial / aquatic ecosystem linkages


    Ecosystem functions


    Using nature to mitigate...
Conventional
                                 Development
                                     Centralized
               ...
Multiple Systems
                                               LID Development
                                          ...
Summerset Subdivision




    Low Impact Development Center 2007
Monitoring Results
                      Discharge Comparision

               0.04
                                      ...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Quantifiable Costs and Benefits
                   $4


                                               1.5
               ...
Green Highways
    Watershed Driven Stormwater


    Recyclables and Reuse


    Ecosystems and Conservation





     ...
Context Sensitive Solution?
    Low Impact Development Center 2007
Green Highway Network
     Development




     Low Impact Development Center 2007
EMS/Performance Based Approach

    Protect Environmental Legacy


    Save Costs/Reduce Consumption


    Ease Regulato...
GHP/Stormwater EMS Roadmap
                                   1. Identify environmental
                                  ...
Green Infrastructure
                       rs
      opportunitiesive
                     are
                   R
      ...
It is a system of hubs and links
        that provides measurable
                 benefits
    ..The term green infrastru...
Links and Hubs
    An organizing form idea for planning green

    infrastructure
    Creates an interdependent network o...
Low Impact Development Center 2007
Historic Construct of
         Stormwater Regulations
    The majority regulate the peak flow rate of stormwater

    dis...
Examples of robust LID Programs
       Portland, Oregon




      Photos courtesy of the Portland Bureau of Environmental ...
Portland, Oregon (cont.)




   Photos courtesy of the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services.

                Low Imp...
Seattle, Washington




Photos courtesy of Seattle Public Utilities.


                          Low Impact Development Ce...
Vancouver, British Columbia




 Photos courtesy of City of Vancouver Greenways Program.

                              Lo...
Vancouver, British Columbia (cont.)




 Photos courtesy of City of Vancouver Greenways Program.

                        ...
What Motivated the Use of
          New Approaches?
    Portland’s innovative approaches to stormwater

    management ar...
Conclusions
    Regulatory and environmental drivers create an

    incentive for using new stormwater management
    app...
How are jurisdictions
developing regulations that
spur more wide-spread use
 of innovative stormwater
       management?

...
Anne Arundel County, MD
    Counties are permitted to establish more stringent

    requirements than those required by t...
Effects of AA County Standard




         Low Impact Development Center 2007
Maryland Stormwater Management
           Act of 2007
    Passed by the General Assembly in April and

    signed into la...
New Jersey Stormwater Regulations

    Groundwater recharge requirement:

        Require that 100% of pre-development av...
New Jersey Stormwater
             Regulations (cont.)
    Runoff quantity requirement:

      Require that post-develop...
Portland Stormwater Regulations
    City code requires on-site stormwater management for

    new development and redevel...
Washington, DC
Anacostia River Redevelopment
    The AWC is responsible for

    revitalization of lands along
    the ri...
Seattle Green Factor
    Requires 30% of a parcel in the Neighborhood Commercial

    Zone to be vegetated or the functio...
Recommendations for Regulations
    Incorporate volume and hydrologic performance

    requirements into regulations.
   ...
Incentives for LID Outside of
         Regulatory Structure
    Chicago and Portland offer density and building square

 ...
Coyote Creek Watershed
Courtesy E. Takata
                     Low Impact Development Center 2007
Coyote Creek Green
       Infrastructure Principles
    Start upstream


    Connect the Dots


    Use Nature as a Guid...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Neil Intro Day1

803

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
803
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Neil Intro Day1"

  1. 1. Low Impact Development and Green Strategies for Regulatory Compliance and Resource Protection Low Impact Development Center 2007
  2. 2. CHAPTER 26 CFR - WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL SUBCHAPTER I - RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS •§ 1251. Congressional declaration of goals and policy. (a) Restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and biological integrity of Nation's waters; national goals for achievement of objective. • Ecosystems Based • Technology-forcing • Comprehensive Research • Total Maximum Daily Load Low Impact Development Center 2007
  3. 3. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  4. 4. Regulations and Resource Protection Low Impact Development Center 2007
  5. 5. Environmental Environmental Interests Interests $ $ Development Development Interests Interests $ New Rules! Low Impact Development Center 2007
  6. 6. Low Impact Development Major Components 1. Conservation (Watershed and Site Level ) 2. Minimization (Site Level) 3. Strategic Timing (Watershed and Site Level) 4. Integrated Management Practices (Site Level) Retain / Detain / Filter / Recharge / Use 5. Pollution Prevention Traditional Approaches Low Impact Development Center 2007
  7. 7. Key LID Principles “Volume” and Water Balance to Achieve Objectives Unique Watershed Design  Match Initial Abstraction Volume  Mimic Water Balance  Uniform Distribution of Small-scale Controls  Cumulative Impacts of Multiple Systems  filter / detain / retain / use / recharge / evaporate  Decentralized / Disconnection  Multifunctional Multipurpose Landscape & Architecture  Pollution Prevention  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  8. 8. 1. Conservation Plans / Regulations Local Watershed and Conservation Plans  Forest (Contiguous and Interior Habitat)  Large and Small Scale Streams (Corridors)  Wetlands  Habitats  Step Slopes  Buffers  Critical Areas  Parks  Scenic Areas  Trails  Shorelines  Difficult Soils  Ag Lands  Minerals  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  9. 9. 2. Minimize Impacts Low Im pact Design Multifunctional Use of Landscape and Infrastructure Minimize clearing  Minimize grading  Save A and B soils  Limit lot disturbance Decentralized  Controls * Soil Amendments  Roofs Parking Lots Alternative Surfaces  Open Drainage Rain Barrels Open Space Reforestation  Turf Educational Disconnect  components Reduce pipes, curb and gutters  Reduce impervious surfaces  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  10. 10. 3. Maintain Time of Concentration and Watershed Patterns Open Drainage  Use green space  Flatten slopes  Disperse drainage  Lengthen flow paths  Save headwater areas  Vegetative swales  Maintain natural flow paths  Increase distance from streams  Maximize sheet flow  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  11. 11. 4. Storage, Detention & Filtration “LID IMP’s”  Uniform Distribution at the Source Open drainage swales  Rain Gardens / Bioretention  Smaller pipes and culverts  Small inlets  Depression storage  Infiltration  Rooftop storage  Pipe storage  Street storage  Rain Water Use  Soil Management**  Low Impact Development Center 2007 Emeryville and UCD
  12. 12. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  13. 13. 5. Pollution Prevention 30 - 40% Reduction in N&P Kettering Demonstration Project Maintenance  Proper use, handling and disposal  Individuals  Lawn / car / hazardous wastes / reporting / recycling  Industry  Good house keeping / proper disposal / reuse / spills  Business  Alternative products / Product liability  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  14. 14. LID is Not A land use or zoning control  An either this or that approach  Independent of watershed planning  “The” Answer  LID is A Water Balance Approach to Hydrology  A science and unit process based approach  Decentralized and Integrated  Technology Driven  “The” Answer  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  15. 15. Stormwater Drinking Water LID is a Holistic Integrated Approach Wastewater Low Impact Development Center 2007
  16. 16. N2 AIR NH3 Where did it all start? DENITRIFICATION RAINFALL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ADSORPTION PARTICULATES LID BIOLOGICAL FIXATION PLANT MATERIALS RUNOFF RUNOFF Manual VOLITILIZATION METALS, NUTRIENTS MULCH SANDY SOIL MEDIUM AMMONIFICATION Stormwater NO3 NITROGEN FIXATION Hydrology NH4 Standards DENITRIFICATION NO2 Manual Manual DRAIN INFILTRATION RECHAR GE Landscaping Water DPW Land NITROGEN CYCLE FOR BIORETENTION Conservation Development Manual Manual San Diego LID Manual Village Homes Low Impact Development Center 2007
  17. 17. High Rate Bio-filtration Low Impact Development Center 2007
  18. 18. AIR N2 NH3 DENITRIFICATION RAINFALL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ADSORPTION PARTICULATES BIOLOGICAL FIXATION PLANT MATERIALS RUNOFF RUNOFF VOLITILIZATION METALS, NUTRIENTS MULCH SANDY SOIL MEDIUM AMMONIFICATION NO3 NITROGEN FIXATION NH4 DENITRIFICATION NO2 DRAIN INFILTRATION RECHARGE NITROGEN CYCLE FOR BIORETENTION Low Impact Development Center 2007
  19. 19. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  20. 20. Bioretention California Low Impact Development Center 2007
  21. 21. “Traditional” Stormwater Issues Non-Point Runoff Volume Trash & Debris Low Impact Development Center 2007
  22. 22. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  23. 23. Traditional Urban Sustainable Urban Drainage Drainage Water Quality Capacity Capacity Amenity The Good Old Days! Low Impact Development Center 2007 Stahre, 2006
  24. 24. Conventional - 70’s 70’s Flood Control  Approach Single Event Risk based storms (2-  year, 10-year, 100-year) Site Design and  Watershed use same approach (HEC, NRCS) for Common Platform Low Impact Development Center 2007
  25. 25. Predictable “Simple” Processes β K= 2/3 AR n Low Impact Development Center 2007
  26. 26. 80’s/90’s 70’s Flood Control Approach  Single event Risk based storms (2-year,  10-year, 100-year) Site Design and Watershed  use same approach (HEC, NRCS) for Common Platform Bring in Efficiency and  P × Pj × × Rv Loadings with %. L= × C × A × 2.72 12 L = Load, P=Precipitation Low Impact Development Center 2007
  27. 27. Today Moving towards Tributary  Strategies Loadings and Limits (303d)  Site Design Models don’t link  to Watershed Models Rapid Assessments that may  have significant data or science gaps Costs and Predictability  unknown Low Impact Development Center 2007
  28. 28. THE Difference Q = CIA ∫ C (t )Q(t )dt C= ∫ Q(t )dt Is this state-of-the-art? Low Impact Development Center 2007
  29. 29. Courtesy Geoanalysis Low Impact Development Center 2007
  30. 30. Low Impact Development Center 2007 Courtesy Wong, 2001
  31. 31. Effective Work Index (W) Range of Geomorphically Significant flows Stream Flow τc τbi Characteristics of Bed and Bank Materials τc 1.5 n ∑ (τ − τ c) ⋅ ∆ t W= bi Normal Dry i= 1 Weather Flow Level Low Impact Development Center 2007 Geosyntec
  32. 32. Smart Growth/LID Hydrology Are the Metrics and Protocols Right?  Control Runoff at Microwatershed Level  Consider Hydrologic Process in Microwatershed  Layout Maintain First Order Receiving Streams  Maintain Vegetated Buffer Zones  Control Spatial Pattern of Hydrologic Storage  Control Upland Flow Velocities  Control Temporal Characteristics of Runoff  McQuen, 2004 Low Impact Development Center 2007
  33. 33. Incorporated into Master Plan Low Impact Development Center 2007
  34. 34. Metro West Illustrative Plan Low Impact Development Center 2007
  35. 35. Low Impact Development Center 2007 Emeryville
  36. 36. Land Use Change is a better indicator! Low Impact Development Center 2007
  37. 37. Issues Where is a watershed with less than 10%  imperviousness? Methods  Scale and location in watershed (avoid  headwaters) Cumulative effects  Moglen, 2007 Low Impact Development Center 2007
  38. 38. Compacted Dysfunctional Soils Low Impact Development Center 2007
  39. 39. Lawn Soil Compaction Compaction (Mpa) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0 10 20 30 Depth (cm) 40 50 60 No Uninhibited Impaired Root Root Root Growth Growth Growth 70 Low Impact Development Center 2007
  40. 40. Reston Watershed Management Planning Low Impact Development Center 2007
  41. 41. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  42. 42. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  43. 43. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  44. 44. Buttermilk off North Shore Buttermilk off Ring Road Low Impact Development Center 2007
  45. 45. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  46. 46. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  47. 47. Stormwater Ponds: Valuable Wildlife Habitat? Low Impact Development Center 2007
  48. 48. TMDL Goose Low Impact Development Center 2007
  49. 49. B-IBI w/BMPs B-IBI w/o BMPs 45 40 35 30 B-IBI Score 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Watershed Urbanization (%TIA) Figure 2: Showing the lack of mitigating influence of structural BMPs on biologic conditions in Puget Sound lowland streams (Horner and May, 2000). Note, “w/BMPs” refers to structural facilities only. [Honer / May 2001] Low Impact Development Center 2007
  50. 50. Figure 1. Comparison of Habitat Condition and Montgomery County, Biological Condition for Sites With and Without SWM MD Habitat Condition vs Biological Condition Both of the datasets Test Sites (With Stormwater Controls) y=20.896*exp( 0.011*x)+eps 100 plot mainly below the 90 T08 line (Figure 1). Almost 80 (As % of Best Possible Score) T01 Biological Condition 70 T06 RE2 all test sites do, and 60 DS3 T05 T07 DS2 T12DS1 RE4 T02 RE1 T04 T15 50 T10 while 6-7 of the T14 T18 T03 T13 40 T16 T17 T09 T19 T11 T20 30 control sites plot 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Habitat Condition (as per cent of Best Possible Score) along the line, the remainder plot below Habitat Condition vs Biological Condition Control Sites (Without Stormwater Controls) y=17.126*exp( 0.016*x)+eps the line. 100 90 Stream embedding C04 C01 80 (As % of Best Possible Score) C02 70 Biological Condition Riffle areas C05 C03 C07 60 C13 C06 C09 Flow regime 50 C18 C15 C14 C11 C12 C16 C20 C08 C17 40 C19 30 20 WMI 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Low Impact Development Center 2007 Habitat Condition(as per cent of Best Possible Score)
  51. 51. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  52. 52. Where are the watershed functions?Low Impact Development Center 2007
  53. 53. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  54. 54. The Future of the Urban America Low Impact Development Center 2007
  55. 55. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  56. 56. Maintenance and Inspection • Safety • Inspection • Access • Special Equipment • Costs Low Impact Development Center 2007
  57. 57. Maintenance Pond Liabilities Limitations Safety • Safety / Health • Inspection / Maintenance • Inefficient Pollutant Removal • Temp / Sediment / Frequency / Volume Low Impact Development Center 2007
  58. 58. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  59. 59. Cost/Effectiveness A bioretention pond costs $2,000 to construct for a ½ site. So it costs $4,000 per acre. MC = c IJ + mIJ Q * RJ 2 Low Impact Development Center 2007
  60. 60. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  61. 61. BMP Removal Efficiency? Low Impact Development Center 2007
  62. 62. Ecological Integrity New Objectives Protection Species – Fauna / Flora Structure – Spatial / Temp / Distribution Processes – Cycling (Energy / Materials / Nutrients) Ecological Factors • Hydrology / Hydraulics • Habitat Structure • Water Quality • Energy Sources Small Stream and Living • Biotic Interactions Resource Protection Impact Development Center 2007 Low
  63. 63. General Assumptions! For the foreseeable future, urbanization will continue  mostly in the same patterns as today. We don’t know exactly how much stress aquatic  ecosystems can sustain before they crash. Where aquatic ecosystems are stressed terrestrial  ecosystems are dysfunctional. Impact reduction strategies will most likely ensure  ongoing degradation of the ecological health due to cumulative impacts. There are no thresholds for acceptable levels of  stressors. Impacts to the ecological integrity occur whenever ecological functions are altered or stressors are added. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  64. 64. General Assumptions! Our environmental technological challenge is  to integrate development into the ecosystem as best we can in a manner that developed areas remain a vital part of the ecosystem instead of apart from it. If growth and development continue  unabated, at best, technology can only delay the onset of negative consequences. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  65. 65. Paradigm Shifts Watersheds to Ecosystems  Flow Centric to Volume Centric  Centralized Control to Decentralized Control  Uni-functional to Multifunctional  Impact Reduction to Functional Restoration  Good Drainage to Functional Drainage  One Size Fits All to Unique Design  Unsustainable to Sustainable  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  66. 66. Important Concepts Terrestrial / aquatic ecosystem linkages  Ecosystem functions  Using nature to mitigate its own forces  Mimic the water balance  Hydrology as an organizing principle  Multiple systems  Volume / Frequency / Timing  Ecological functions of the built environment  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  67. 67. Conventional Development Centralized Pipe and Pond Control Low Impact Development Center 2007
  68. 68. Multiple Systems LID Development Conservation Minimization Soil Amendments Open Drainage Rain Gardens Rain Barrels Pollution Prevention Disconnected Decentralized Distributed Multi-functional Water Use Low Impact Development Center 2007
  69. 69. Summerset Subdivision Low Impact Development Center 2007
  70. 70. Monitoring Results Discharge Comparision 0.04 LID Q 0.02 Conv. Q Discharge, cfs/acre 0.00 13:55 14:24 14:52 15:21 15:50 16:19 -0.02 Time, April 6, 2001 Low Impact Development Center 2007
  71. 71. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  72. 72. Quantifiable Costs and Benefits $4 1.5 $2 1.5 1.5 $0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 (in $ millions) Project Cost -$2 -4.6 O&M Savings from Loan -$4 Increase Home Value -8.9 -$6 -$8 -$10 Do Nothing Option 2 & 3 Traditional Low Impact Development Center 2007
  73. 73. Green Highways Watershed Driven Stormwater  Recyclables and Reuse  Ecosystems and Conservation  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  74. 74. Context Sensitive Solution? Low Impact Development Center 2007
  75. 75. Green Highway Network Development Low Impact Development Center 2007
  76. 76. EMS/Performance Based Approach Protect Environmental Legacy  Save Costs/Reduce Consumption  Ease Regulatory Burden  Improve Review Cycles  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  77. 77. GHP/Stormwater EMS Roadmap 1. Identify environmental issue(s) and/or opportunity(ies) to be 11. Managers/senior management. Review addressed by EMS. progress, identify adjustments, and confirm 2. Identify desired commitments. environmental and business results and APPROVAL – benefits. 10B. PERIODIC 10A. PROJECT Management REVIEW REVIEW provides Brief management on Assess EMS feedback to 3. Establish objectives, status in meeting project finalize issues, quantifiable measures and objectives and targets. performance. opportunities, targets, and associated and expected milestones. results. 9. Identify EMS-related training needs, responsibilities and 4. Obtain management schedule. Conduct the commitment to EMS, training. characterize EMS resource needs, and identify EMS leaders. 8. Identify personnel (by title) affected by EMS, define responsibilities, and 5. Identify existing communicate initiatives, programs, responsibilities. procedures, processes, and tools relevant to the EMS. 7. Assign responsibility for developing enhanced or 6. Identify improvements to new procedures, achieve EMS objectives processes, and tools. PLAN DO CHECK ACT LEGEND: Low Impact Development Center 2007
  78. 78. Green Infrastructure rs opportunitiesive are R everywhere to s p to f o LID tools facilitate the development of  o green infrastructure R Transportation corridors provide linking  elements in a green infrastructure network Low Impact Development Center 2007
  79. 79. It is a system of hubs and links that provides measurable benefits ..The term green infrastructure  emphasizes interconnected systems of natural areas and other open spaces that are protected and managed for the ecological benefits that they provide to the people and the environment.” Low Impact Development Center 2007
  80. 80. Links and Hubs An organizing form idea for planning green  infrastructure Creates an interdependent network of  green Fits a watershed model of planning  Can be implemented and maintained in  sections Is an opportunity for public-private  partnerships Low Impact Development Center 2007
  81. 81. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  82. 82. Historic Construct of Stormwater Regulations The majority regulate the peak flow rate of stormwater  discharges. Do not sufficiently address hydrologic modifications  and the impacts on receiving water quality – do not address increased volume of stormwater generated by development. Perpetuate the use of conventional end-of-pipe BMPs –  the use of which have not demonstrated significant water quality improvements. Fail to consider watershed criteria.  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  83. 83. Examples of robust LID Programs Portland, Oregon Photos courtesy of the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  84. 84. Portland, Oregon (cont.) Photos courtesy of the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  85. 85. Seattle, Washington Photos courtesy of Seattle Public Utilities. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  86. 86. Vancouver, British Columbia Photos courtesy of City of Vancouver Greenways Program. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  87. 87. Vancouver, British Columbia (cont.) Photos courtesy of City of Vancouver Greenways Program. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  88. 88. What Motivated the Use of New Approaches? Portland’s innovative approaches to stormwater  management are necessitated by the need to satisfy a CSO consent decree, SDWA requirements, impending TMDL limitations, and Superfund cleanup measures. Stormwater runoff from Seattle and Vancouver  discharges to receiving waters with salmon populations. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  89. 89. Conclusions Regulatory and environmental drivers create an  incentive for using new stormwater management approaches. When faced with certain and defined performance  criteria, source control and biological treatment of stormwater emerges as a preferred treatment option. How are jurisdictions developing regulations that spur  more wide-spread use of innovative stormwater management? Low Impact Development Center 2007
  90. 90. How are jurisdictions developing regulations that spur more wide-spread use of innovative stormwater management? Low Impact Development Center 2007
  91. 91. Anne Arundel County, MD Counties are permitted to establish more stringent  requirements than those required by the Maryland Stormwater Manual. AA County stipulates “The use of nonstructural  stormwater management practices shall be implemented to the maximum extent practicable for satisfying the recharge volume requirement prior to the use of structural stormwater management practices to more closely mimic the predevelopment hydrology and to discourage the reliance on structural BMPs.” Low Impact Development Center 2007
  92. 92. Effects of AA County Standard Low Impact Development Center 2007
  93. 93. Maryland Stormwater Management Act of 2007 Passed by the General Assembly in April and  signed into law by the Governor. Requires the implementation of environmental  site design to the maximum extent practicable and review and modification of ordinances to remove impediments to ESD. Developers must demonstrate that ESD has  been optimized on new development sites before using conventional BMPs. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  94. 94. New Jersey Stormwater Regulations Groundwater recharge requirement:  Require that 100% of pre-development average annual  groundwater recharge volume for the site is maintained post- development, OR That the post-development increase in stormwater runoff for  the 2-year storm is infiltrated. Water quality requirement:  80% removal of TSS and reduction of nutrients to the  maximum extent feasible, with an emphasis on non-structural practices. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  95. 95. New Jersey Stormwater Regulations (cont.) Runoff quantity requirement:   Require that post-development runoff hydrographs for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm do not exceed, at any point in time, the predevelopment hydrographs, OR  Demonstrate that there is no increase in peak runoff rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events and that the increased volume and change of timing does not have downstream impacts, OR  Demonstrate that post-development peak runoff rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events are 50, 75, and 80%, respectively, of pre-development runoff rates. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  96. 96. Portland Stormwater Regulations City code requires on-site stormwater management for  new development and redevelopment (i.e., retention and infiltration). For other properties, stormwater must be retained or  infiltrated to the maximum extent practicable before off-site discharge is allowed. Required 70% removal of TSS and treatment for  pollutants with TMDL limitations in receiving stream. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  97. 97. Washington, DC Anacostia River Redevelopment The AWC is responsible for  revitalization of lands along the river and coordinating environmental and programming initiatives that promote river clean up. One-inch, on-site retention  standard and water quality treatment for up to the 2-year storm for new development and re-development. Stated preference for  vegetated controls. Adopted by AWC board June  1st. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  98. 98. Seattle Green Factor Requires 30% of a parcel in the Neighborhood Commercial  Zone to be vegetated or the functional equivalent as determined by the Green Factor. For example, the Green Factor for green roofs is 0.7,  permeable paving is 0.6, and lawn is 0.2. Bonuses provided for rainwater harvesting or planting low water-use vegetation. Encourages the planting of layers of vegetation on the  property and in public right-of-ways adjacent to the property. In effect as of January 2007.  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  99. 99. Recommendations for Regulations Incorporate volume and hydrologic performance  requirements into regulations. Create regulatory certainty.  Provide incentives for developers that use LID (e.g.,  streamline review process or move stormwater plans to the top of the stack). Maryland offers six different stormwater credits for  green practices. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  100. 100. Incentives for LID Outside of Regulatory Structure Chicago and Portland offer density and building square  footage bonuses, respectively, for buildings with green roofs. Offer discounts for stormwater or other utility fees for  on-site or LID management practices – full-cost pricing is critical. Subsidized downspout disconnection programs.  In January 2006, Chicago provided 20 $5,000 grants for  residential and small-scale commercial green roofs and received 123 applications. Low Impact Development Center 2007
  101. 101. Coyote Creek Watershed Courtesy E. Takata Low Impact Development Center 2007
  102. 102. Coyote Creek Green Infrastructure Principles Start upstream  Connect the Dots  Use Nature as a Guide  All Fronts/No backs  Manage for the Long Term  Multiple Objectives  Low Impact Development Center 2007
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×