The document discusses practical solutions for sustainable development focusing on low impact development (LID) and green infrastructure to address stormwater management and flooding issues caused by climate change. It reviews lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and provides case studies highlighting the economic and environmental benefits of implementing LID strategies, such as reduced costs and improved water quality. The document emphasizes the importance of collaboration among stakeholders and developing trust in science to implement effective solutions.

1. Sustainable Development:
Practical Solutions to Real World
Problems
Robert Roseen, PhD, D.WRE, PE
rroseen@geosyntec.com 603-205-8056
2014 Decision Makers Workshops: Construction and Clean Water
Building Techniques and Technologies
that Protect Clean Water
Marion, MA
April 16, 2014

2. The New Orleans Hurricane Protection System: What Went Wrong and
Why-- 10 Lessons Learned from Katrina by the ASCE Hurricane Katrina
External Review Panel and the USACE Interagency Performance Evaluation
Task Force
1. Failure to think globally and act locally-We must account for climate
change
2. Failure to absorb new knowledge
3. Failure to understand, manage, and communicate risk-Need to take
rigorous risk based approach,
4. Failure to build quality in
5. Failure to build in resilience
6. Failure to provide redundancy
7. Failure to see that the sum of many parts does not equal a system
8. The buck couldn’t find a place to stop--Poor organization, lack of
accountability
9. Beware of interfaces: materials and jurisdiction
10. Follow the money-People responsible for design and construction had no
control of the monies.

3. Contentious issues require a commitment to
listen carefully and work together for solutions
to be effective

4. Trust, Legitimacy and Relevance of
Science
• Building trust can be
accomplished by developing
partnerships within local
governments and
stakeholders
• Through participation and
familiarity in the process
people will facilitate a deeper
trust in science products.

6. Video by Laura James, Seattle, WA

7. Regulatory Drivers
• Consent decrees and Long term control plans for CSO
separation
• NPDES MS4 Phase I and Phase II has been largely an
issue of due diligence with respect to SWMP
• TMDLs are based on WQ standards—due diligence
does not matter
• 80% TSS Removal will not meet “no net increase
standard”
• GI and LID will be needed to meet TMDL requirements

8. In the News…..
What is difference between these outcomes?
Negotiated plans using Green Infrastructure to
reduce reliance on Gray Infrastructure

9. Green Infrastructure and
Low Impact Development
Modeling designs after natural systems

10. Low Impact Development

12. • The environmental and water quality
benefits of LID are well established,
• There are considerable economic,
infrastructure, and adaptation
planning benefits that are NOT WELL
KNOWN from using LID-based
strategies.
Benefits of LID and Green
Infrastructure

13. Triple Bottom Line Analyses

14. Not All Costs are Equal
When implementing stormwater
improvements, it is important to consider:
who pays, how, and when.
1. Existing municipal programs and long-term
bonds
2. Stormwater Utilities—fees upon amount of
SW generated
3. Developer, Owner, Consumer

15. Economic Case Studies

16. Boulder Hills, Pelham, NH
 2009 Installation of 1300’ of first PA private
residential road in Northeast
 Site will be nearly Zero discharge
 LID subdivision 55+ Active Adult Community
 Large sand deposit
 Cost 25% greater per ton installed

17. Conventional Site
Design
LID Design
Avoided use of 1616’ of
curbing, 785’ pipe, 8
catch-basins, 2 detention
basins, 2 outlet control
structures
Built on 9% grade
1.3 acres less of
land clearing
17

18. Comparison of Unit Costs
6% savings on total cost of SW infrastructure for a ~zero discharge site

19. A Low Impact Development
Approach at Greenland
Meadows
Greenland, New Hampshire
Utilizing an LID approach that featured acres of
porous asphalt and a gravel wetland, a cost-
competitive drainage system was designed for a
large retail development. The total impervious
area of the development – mainly from rooftops
and non-porous parking areas – is approximately
25.6 acres. This project had an estimated 26%
cost reduction due to cost avoidance in
associated drainage infrastructure (ponds and
piping) with the use of Low Impact Development.

20. Greenland Meadows
Commercial,
Greenland, NH
• “Gold-Star” Commercial
Development
• Cost of doing business
near Impaired
Waters/303D
• Brownfields site, ideal
location, 15yrs
• Proposed site >10,000
Average Daily Traffic count
on >30 acres

21. Comparison of Unit Costs
26% savings on total cost of SW infrastructure for a ~zero discharge site

22. Portland, OR
Tabor to the River:
Brooklyn Creek Project
• Program sought to rectify CSO, street and
basement flooding
• The original cost estimate using gray
infrastructure was $144 million (2009
dollars).
• Gray-Green design including a total of
$11 million allocated for green solutions,
the cost estimate for this integrated
approach was $81 million.
• A savings of $63 million for the city

24. New York City, New York
Taking it to the next level…..jobs and added value

25. O&M Costs
CSO
Control
Scenarios
• GI will provided
a 22% reduction
in LTCP capital
cost
• Funds for labor,
supplies, and
equipment
• Replacing
energy
demands of
grey
infrastructure
O&M burden shifts to people in
replace of heavy energy
demand

26. Economic Conclusions
• Green Infrastructure is being embraced nationally due to reduced demand
on gray infrastructure
• GI has value for social and economic in addition to environmental
• LID may add expense on a per item basis
• Project cost reductions were observed from 6% in residential developments
to as high as 26% in commercial projects.
• Municipal use of GI reported cost reductions of 21% to as high as 44%.
• Benefits extend to municipal, private, and commercial entities
• Transfer of monies from infrastructure to jobs associated with the
maintenance activities.
• From a sustainability perspective, a range of benefits includes reductions in
flood damage and increased resiliency of drainage infrastructure;
• Reductions of 33 to 50% in energy demands for heating and cooling.
• A 50% reduction in time to sale, and increased property values of 12-16%.
• Other benefits were incentives in the form of rebates, cost-sharing, and tax
credits. IE. Impervious cover charge
26

27. The Need for
Innovation

28. WHY DO WE CARE?
• System performance
determines the degree and
intensity of usage of a
technology, and influence the
cost of implementation
• Municipalities will be
developing implementation
plans for managing nutrients
• Improvements in performance
could result in reduced cost of
implementation

29. Design and Performance
Not all bioretention systems function equally
• There is a tremendous
amount of variety within
design specifications and
resulting performance that is
not well understood
• Bioretention systems vary
widely with respect to design
features

30. Blue Line is at median INFLUENT concentration for all systems.
Red Line is at median EFFLUENT concentration for all systems.
Green Line, when present, indicates median EFFLUENT
concentration of categories with particularly good performance.
NO3
Median INF = 0.36 mg/L
Median EFF = 0.22 mg/L
Median %RE = 14%
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000 Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
N=35 N=10 N=10 N=14 N=10 N=29 N=3 N=7 N=3 N=23 N=8 N=9 N=8
All Systems 40-69%
Sand Mix
70-100%
Sand Mix
No Compost
Mix
Compost
Mix
Underdrain No Internal
Storage
Internal
Storage
<24 in
Media
Depth
24-36 in
Media
Depth
>36 in
Media
Depth
Pre-
treatment
No Pre-
treatment
NO3Concentration
NO3 Box Plots

31. Bioretention-Gravel Wetland
HybridGravel Wetlands Bioretention

32. System
Layout
32
VISR/WQV =0.1

33. 33
Bio-3Influent
Bio-3Effluent
Bio-4Influent
Bio-4Effluent
GWInfluent
GWEffluent
Bio-5Cell2
Influent
Bio-5Cell2
Effluent
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01
0.1
1
%RE
NO3Concentration(mg/L)
Nitrate
Bioretention--STD Gravel
Wetland
Bioretention-
ISR
An increase in performance
efficiency of 50% is the
equivalent of a
33% cost reduction

34. Low Impact Development as a
Climate Adaptation Tool and
Community Resiliency
Mill Pond Rd after dam failure at Nottingham Lake,
4/18/2007

35. Increasing Impervious Surfaces
(Source, USGS, Reston, VA, 2007 )

36. Increase in Precipitation
Changing Trends
(Source, NOAA Climatic Data Center)
County
Historic
100-Yr
NRCC
100-Yr
% Incr.
Rockingham
6.4 8.8 27%
Strafford
6.3 8.2 23%

37. 37
15 Highest Events
Peak Recorded Discharges on Lamprey River
Current Flood Insurance Study
100-Year Flood = 7300 cfs
Of 15 largest events since 1934:
8 have occurred in last 25
years
5 have occurred in last 15
years
3 have occurred in last 5 years
Rank Date
Discharge
(cfs)
Return
Period 1
1 16-May-06 8,970 76-Year
2 18-Apr-07 8,450 38-Year
3 7-Apr-87 7,570 25.3-Year
4 22-Oct-96 7,080 19-Year
5 15-Mar-10 6,760 15.2-Year
6 20-Mar-36 5,490 12.7-Year
7 15-Mar-77 5,000 10.9-Year
8 15-June-98 4,720 9.5-Year
9 3-Apr-04 4,690 8.4-Year
10 30-Mar-83 4,570 7.6-Year
11 6-Apr-60 4,470 6.9-Year
12 11-May-54 4,070 6.3-Year
13 2-Feb-81 3,670 5.8-Year
14 31-July-38 3,530 5.4-Year
15 1-Apr-93 3,400 5.1-Year
Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
1Return Period based on order
statistics and Wiebull plotting
position of peak annual events

38. Costs from Presidentially Declared Disasters in NH
We can decide not to
prepare, but we are then
choosing to increase our risk

39. Conventional Site Design
LID Design
Boulder Hills, Pelham, NH

40. Boulder Hills, Pelham, NH
Boulder Hills, Pelham, NH

41. Newmarket, NH Moonlight Brook

42. How do we
actually
do
this?

43. Commercial Street
Reconstruction Porous
Pavement
Provincetown, Massachusetts
In 2012 Provincetown began the installation of
over 5,000’ of the first “Porous Municipal Main
Street”. The project addressed existing
infrastructure problems with flooding and
drainage along a main thoroughfare that has
tremendous traffic during the busy tourist
season. A high durability asphalt mix-design
was chosen to meet the commercial traffic
requirements. Through the use of widespread
infiltration, the design seeks to manage
stormwater and beach impairments which
occur from the discharge of untreated runoff
from many outfalls. Beach closures at these
outfalls were eliminated in 2013 and numbered
18 in 2011, and 9 in 2012.

44. Provincetown
• Harbor is listed on the 2010 Integrated List of
Waters as a “Category 4a” water body – TMDL for
pathogens
• Heavy recreational and commercial use
• Economic driver for the Town
• Beach closures affect economy and public
perception
Source:www.provincetowntourismoffice.org
• Year-round population of around 3,000
• Significant growth during the summer
– Seasonal population increases to approximately 30,000
– Summer tourism can bring in half a million visitors to Commercial Street

45. Image
placeholder
Image
placeholder
Image
placeholder
Image
placeholder
• Phase I: Winter 2012, Johnson to
Winthrop Street, approx. 3,300 LF
• Phase 2: Winter 2013, Winthrop to West
End, approx. 2,000 LF
• Project costs include: Stone bed and
trench, Drainage replacement, 2 courses
of porous pavement, New granite curbing,
brick sidewalks and miscellaneous detail
work
Porous Pavement Project (Continued)

46. Harbor Beach Closures
0
1
2
3
4
5
BeachClosures
2011
2012
2013
12 7 8
Porous Pavement Standard Pavement
6 Closures in 2013
No 2013 Closures
2013 had a total of
15 closures at 10
locations

47. Does Impervious Cover Reduction
Really Work?
Urban Watershed Renewal in Berry Brook
Robert Roseen, Viktor Hlas, Tom Schueler, Tom Ballestero, Mark Voorhees,
Melinda Bubier, Joel Ballestero, James Houle, Dean Peschel, Bill Boulanger, David
Burdick, Lorie Chase, Ann Scholz, Sally Soule, John Magee, Ben Nugent, Matt
Carpenter, University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, City of Dover,
University of New Hampshire, Cocheco River Watershed Coalition, New Hampshire
Fish and Game, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
47
Funding Sources: NHDES 319 Watershed Assistance
NHDES Aquatic Resource Mitigation Funds

48. Gravel Wetland
DA=11.0 ac, Treated IC = 9.55 ac (86.8%)
Stream Restoration
~800 ft, including C, A and Aa - channel
Page Ave
DA = 5.23 ac,
Treated IC = 1.88 ac (36.0%)
Crescent Ave
DA = 2.97 ac
Treated IC = 1.5 ac (28.5%)
Wetland Expansion
~0.6 acres
Roosevelt AveUpper Horne Street
DA = 12.2 ac
Treated IC = 3.7 ac (31%)
Glencrest Ave
DA = 6.8ac
Treated IC = 2.3 ac (33%) Lowell Ave
DA = 2.6 ac
Treated IC = ac (43%)

49. Hydrology---Benefits of LID Retrofits
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.0000.00000
0.01000
0.02000
0.03000
0.04000
0.05000
0.06000
7/11/2011 10/19/2011 1/27/2012 5/6/2012 8/14/2012 11/22/2012
Precip(in)
Discharge/Area(cfs/ac)
Date
Average Daily Flow per Watershed Area
Separation of
hydrographs
for developed
and
undeveloped
watersheds
pre-
constructions
Similarity of
hydrographs
for developed
and
undeveloped
watersheds
post-LID
installs
Shift towards
pre-
development
hydrology
POST-CONSTRUCTION
LID
CONSTRUCTIONPRE-CONSTRUCTION

50. Low Impact Development Hydrology
50
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Pn
Average Daily Flow per Watershed Area (cfs/ac)
Flow Duration Cuves by Time Period
Isinglass_Pre-LID
BB-Station_Pre-LID
Isinglass_Post-LID
BB-Station_Post-LID
Average daily area weighted flow duration curves for Berry Brook-Lower Watershed
(Station, DA = 184.8 acres) and Isinglass River (DA = 73.6 sq.miles)
Extreme Storms—Less
Frequent
Everyday Storms
Separation of hydrograph
for developed and
undeveloped watersheds
Shift towards
predevelopment hydrology
post-LID installs

51. 2010 State Street Reconstruction
Portsmouth, NH
• Award-winning CSO
separation with GI in historic
downtown
• Included tree filters,
bioretention systems, and
subsurface detention and
filtration.

52. 2009 Long Creek Watershed
S. Portland, ME
• Surface Transportation
ARRA Project
• First DOT PA road in the
northeast-Sept 09
• 1500 feet of 6 Lane
Highway Reconstruction
• 20,000 vehicles per day
• 2% cost differential in
comparison with std build
52

53. 2012 Cottages at Capstone,
Durham, NH
• 600+ Bed Student Housing
complex
• Located in drinking water
supply area
• Watershed impaired for
Nitrogen
• Included gravel wetlands,
porous pavements

54. Acknowledgements
Friends and Colleagues at the UNHSC
• James Houle, CPSWQ
• Thomas Ballestero, PhD, PE, PH, CGWP, PG
• Alison Watts, PhD, PG
• Timothy Puls
Forging the Link Project Team
• Todd Janeski, Virginia Commonwealth Univ
• James Houle, CPSWQ, UNHSC Environmental Research Group
• Michael Simpson, Antioch University New England
• Jeff Gunderson, Professional Content Writer
• Tricia Miller, Graphic Designer

55. Climate Change and Land Use Impacts on the 100-Yr Floodplain
• Cameron Wake & Fay Rubin, EOS, University of New Hampshire
• Robert Roseen, Ann Scholz & Tom Ballestero, UNH Stormwater
Center
• Michael Simpson, Antioch University New England
• Steve Miller, Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
• Julia Peterson & Lisa Townson, UNH Cooperative Extension
• John Echeverria, Katherine Garvey & Peg Elmer, Vermont Law
School
Commercial Design Partners
• Joseph Persechino and Greg Mikolaities, Tighe and Bond
• Brian Potvin, and Austin Turner of Tetra Tech Rizzo
• David Jordan of SFC Engineering Partnership,
Acknowledgements

56. National Estuarine Research Reserve Coastal Training Program Coordinators:
• Heather Elmer of the old Woman Creek NERR,
• Christine Feurt of the Wells NERR,
• Steve Miller of the great Bay NERR,
• Tonna-Marie Surgeon-Rogers of the Waquoit Bay NERR,
• David Dickson, National NEMO Coordinator;
• LaMarr Clannon, Maine NEMO Coordinator; and Julie Westerlund of Northland NEMO.
Municipal partners for sharing their valuable information and
• Tom Brueckner, Engineering Manager at the Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC);
• John Zuba, NBC Permits Manager;
• Linda Dobson, Program Manager for Sustainable Stormwater Management at the
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services;
• Bill Owen, P.E., Engineering Services with the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental
Services;
• Peter Mulvaney, Sustainable Infrastructure Administrator for the City of Chicago
Department of Water Management.
Volunteer municipal decision makers that participated in the development of this project.
Acknowledgements

57. Questions?
57