Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Green Infrastructure Implementation
    Green Infrastructure Implementation
    Green Infrastructure Implementation
    Ebook1,117 pages8 hours

    Green Infrastructure Implementation

    By Water Environment Federation

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Green Infrastructure Implementation provides actionable information that promotes the implementation of green infrastructure. Unlike most publications, which focus on technical design of individual green elements, this book tackles topics that relate directly to the ability to implement green infrastructure. The collection of programmatic and planning topics is unique in current literature, and covers a range of issues from stormwater to public education. Green Infrastructure Implementation identifies obstacles and provides guidance in possible approaches to overcoming them at the programmatic level. It also provides clear and actionable suggestions as to the selection and planning of green infrastructure at different scales and identifies considerations for implementation based on type of practice and specific geographic considerations. Each topic details an assessment of barriers and potential challenges and includes case studies that show how they can be addressed.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherWater Environment Federation
    Release dateAug 1, 2014
    ISBN9781572783102
    Green Infrastructure Implementation

    Read more from Water Environment Federation

    Related to Green Infrastructure Implementation

    Related ebooks

    Environmental Engineering For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for Green Infrastructure Implementation

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Green Infrastructure Implementation - Water Environment Federation

      models

      Preface

      This Special Publication provides green infrastructure practitioners with tools and strategies to facilitate implementation of green infrastructure. The publication addresses the programmatic aspects of green infrastructure—the policies and processes that must be defined and developed—to have a successful green infrastructure program. It helps implementers of green infrastructure identify critical issues and develop approaches for a broad range of topics and over a range of scales.

      This Special Publication was produced under the direction of Carol L. Hufnagel, P.E., Chair, and Nancy D. Rottle, MLA, RLA, Vice-Chair.

      In addition to the WEF Task Force and Technical Practice Committee Control Group members, reviewers include Thomas P. Ballestero, Ph.D., P.E., PH, PG; Annie E. Bastoni, LEED AP; Craig Coronato, FASLA, LEEDAP; Shreya Dalwadi; Robert Goo; Kent Halloran, P.E., BCEE; Eric Kuehler; Kossen Miller; Lucas W. Paz, Ph.D.; Paul Quinlan; and Shareen Wagley.

      Authors’ and reviewers’ efforts were supported by the following organizations:

      ARCADIS U.S., Inc., Arlington, Virginia; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Emeryville, California; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Indianapolis, Indiana

      AIRVAC, Inc., Oldsmar, Florida

      Birchline Planning LLC, San Diego, California

      Black & Veatch Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri

      California State University, Sacramento, California

      CDM Smith, Cambridge, Massachusetts

      CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colorado

      Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA), Syracuse, New York

      District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Washington, D.C.

      Fresh Creek Technologies, Inc., Cedar Grove, New Jersey

      Geosyntec Consultants, Oak Brook, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; Westminster, Colorado

      Greeley and Hansen, Chicago, Illinois

      Hatch Mott MacDonald, Cincinnati, Ohio

      Hazen and Sawyer, New York, New York,

      HDR Engineering, Bellevue, Washington

      Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Herndon, Virginia

      Johnson Controls, Inc., Westerville Ohio.

      Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc., Moon Township, Pennsylvania

      KSN Inc., Stockton, California

      Low Impact Development Center, Inc., Beltsville, Maryland

      Logan Simpson Design, Tempe, Arizona

      Milwaukee School of Engineering, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

      MWH Global, Cleveland, Ohio

      North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, North Carolina

      The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

      Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan

      Stantec, Rochester, Minnesota

      Tetra Tech, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Lansing, Michigan; Fairfax, Virginia; Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

      Town of Oakville, Canada

      University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

      University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

      University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

      U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Athens, Georgia

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

      URS Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, Germantown, Maryland

      Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Watertown, Massachusetts

      Wenk Associates, Inc., Denver, Colorado

      Weston & Sampson®, Peabody, Massachusetts

      1

      Introduction and Overview

      Carol L. Hufnagel, P.E. and Nancy D. Rottle, MLA, RLA

      1.0  INTRODUCTION

      2.0  INTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE MANUAL

      3.0  GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TERMINOLOGY

      4.0  A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

      4.1  Recognizing Land Management as Part of Stormwater

      4.2  The Birth of Low Impact Development

      4.3  Green Infrastructure Gaining Momentum

      4.4  Broader Regulatory Acceptance and Recognition of Multiple Benefits

      5.0  GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE REGULATORY DRIVERS

      6.0  REFERENCES

      7.0  SUGGESTED READINGS

      1.0  INTRODUCTION

      For more than a century, the primary method of managing rainwater runoff has been to concentrate, convey, and discharge it to receiving waters. Indeed, runoff has been treated as something to dispose of rather than as a resource. More recently, stormwater management approaches have shifted to those that incorporate green infrastructure. These practices mimic or restore natural hydrologic systems within the built environment.

      Natural processes used by green infrastructure mechanisms can reduce, detain, infiltrate, and harvest stormwater runoff to more closely approximate predevelopment hydrology, reducing downstream flooding and its damage to streams and rivers and thereby conserving dwindling clean water resources. By managing rainfall close to its source, less runoff is produced and pollutants may be treated through natural infiltration processes. This approach reduces the downstream effects of too much water in rain events and too little surface and groundwater during the dry season. It also helps prevent pollutants from being collected and concentrated in stormwater runoff, thereby protecting downstream water resources from their harmful effects. Additionally, green infrastructure can reduce the needs and costs for built infrastructure and enhance the aesthetics and ecological health of local sites and systems, providing multiple benefits.

      While much of the impetus for green infrastructure is related to regulatory water quality programs, it has gained momentum because of the additional benefits it provides. These include lower costs and economic, environmental, and social benefits. Although lower costs are not a given in every circumstance, green infrastructure provides a new set of options that can help optimize selected approaches to stormwater management. Green spaces have been shown to increase property values, reduce heat island effects, reduce carbon emissions, and improve air quality. Green infrastructure also helps keep construction and maintenance jobs in the local workforce. Developments that embrace green infrastructure benefit from an increased demand and higher market value of their properties.

      This introductory chapter sets the stage for the following chapters, which are each authored by an expert in the green infrastructure field. It covers organization of the document, the history and terminology of green infrastructure, and the importance of green infrastructure in regulatory programs.

      2.0  INTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE MANUAL

      During the last decade, the scientific and engineering knowledge of various green infrastructure practices has grown significantly and implementation of proven methods is increasing. The literature provides a wealth of information on how to design various practices. However, a single reference that addresses the multitude of programmatic issues has not been previously available. That is the gap that this manual seeks to fill. The manual is specifically designed to aid in the development of a green infrastructure program. It focuses on programmatic issues and comprehensive project scales rather than the design of individual practices.

      This manual is meant for a broad range of potential users: municipal and professional planners, policy and decision-makers, public works engineers and stormwater professionals, landscape architects and urban designers, urban foresters, public advocacy groups, and citizens. It is intended for those who are embarking on new green infrastructure programs and for those who want to grow and expand their programs. Chapters provide background information, questions to be addressed during planning, and practical and actionable strategies on common issues; examples of how other communities have handled green infrastructure program implementation are also included.

      The first half of the manual is dedicated to approaches that relate to green infrastructure programs. Chapters address institutional structures, planning codes, financing strategies, stakeholder and public outreach, municipal standards, valuing green infrastructure, maintenance, and adaptive management. Much of the material relates to decision-making and process, and, while design applications differ regionally, lessons can be transferred from one region to another.

      The second half of the manual is dedicated to technical approaches to identify, select, and implement green infrastructure at different scales and in diverse settings using a variety of programmatic and design elements. These chapters emphasize considerations to achieve success under and in a range of conditions and contexts, respectively. Initial chapters of the manual include information on selecting controls and specific implementation considerations. Later chapters address planning and implementation of green infrastructure at the site level, in road rights of way, at the neighborhood scale, in the use of green spaces, and at the community and regional scale.

      Finally, case studies are presented in each chapter to illustrate pioneering applications of green infrastructure relevant to the chapter topic. These projects illustrate both the successes and challenges that these efforts have encountered.

      3.0  GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TERMINOLOGY

      The term, green infrastructure, has been used in multiple applications. Green terminology, including the term, green infrastructure, is also applied to land/ space planning, energy production and conservation, sustainability (i.e., the origin and reuse of materials), and water supply conservation. This manual is focused on green infrastructure as it applies to stormwater management. It also considers community design and land use planning that supports stormwater management. Because this manual is primarily intended for stormwater and wet weather programs that result from the Clean Water Act (CWA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) regulatory actions, that perspective will be used throughout.

      Although green infrastructure is a term that has no precise definition, U.S. EPA (2013a) describes it as follows:

      Green infrastructure is a relatively new and flexible term, and it has been used differently in different contexts. EPA intends the term green infrastructure to generally refer to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes to infiltrate, evapotranspirate (the return of water to the atmosphere either through evaporation or by plants), or reuse stormwater or runoff on the site where it is generated. Green infrastructure can be used at a wide range of landscape scales in place of, or in addition to, more traditional stormwater control elements to support the principles of Low Impact Development.

      There are multiple terms used in the field of stormwater management that are relatively interchangeable with green infrastructure, as used in this manual. The vocabulary differs primarily by geographic location and climatic conditions, but also by professional and cultural customs. Examples of related terminology used throughout the United States and the world are presented in Table 1.1.

      4.0  A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

      4.1  Recognizing Land Management as Part of Stormwater

      The story of green infrastructure implementation is one of merging green space conservation and restoration with water resource concerns and innovative stormwater management methods. In the United States, Frederick Law Olmsted’s design for Boston, Massachusetts’, Back Bay Fens in the late 1870s is recognized as a seminal project in which urban landscape manipulation was undertaken to provide a hydrological green space amenity that simultaneously solved public environmental health problems. Olmsted’s proposal to dredge mudflats to restore tidal flushing and purify the Back Bay Fens wetland followed George Perkins Marsh’s urging that humankind become a coworker with nature in the reconstruction of the damaged fabric of the natural world (Marsh, 1965; Spirn, 1998). Like the resulting Emerald Necklace system of Boston’s parks, which are linked by parkways and waterways, many municipal park system plans across the country undertaken by Olmsted’s firm and other planners during the late 19th and early 20th century City Beautiful movement incorporated hydrological systems (e.g., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s, Fairmount Park and Horace William Shaler Cleveland’s park system for Minneapolis, Minnesota).

      A resurgence of attention to green spaces emerged in the 1970s and 1980s with the establishment of urban and rural greenways such as Oregon’s Willamette Greenway and New York’s Hudson River Greenway, often combining recreation with conservation of water resources. Several publications on ecological and cultural greenway planning appeared in the 1990s (e.g., Little [1990], Smith and Hellmund [1993], Flink and Searns [1993], and Fabos and Ahern [1995]). The first use of the term, green infrastructure, has been attributed to a 1994 report to Florida’s governor regarding strategically planned and managed networks of natural lands to be considered in concert with land development, growth management, and built infrastructure (Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services et al., 2011). During this time, urban foresters also used the term to connote environmental services that trees provide in cities. In 1999, The Conservation Fund and the U.S. Forest Service sponsored a working group to help communities integrate green infrastructure to local, regional, and state planning, resulting in a monograph authored by Mark Benedict and Ed McMahon (2002) entitled Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. The working group defined green infrastructure as

      TABLE 1.1   Stormwater management terminology.

      TABLE 1.1   Stormwater management terminology. (Continued)

      … an interconnected network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks and other conservation lands; working farms, ranches and forests; and wilderness and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, sustain air and water resources and contribute to the health and quality of life for America’s communities and people. (Benedict and McMahon, 2002)

      In the face of rapid development and urbanization in the United States, seeing landscape as essential infrastructure was a powerful planning concept to contain sprawl and to convey the necessity for land and water conservation. Likewise, European researchers and open space advocates, particularly in the United Kingdom, adopted the term as a new framework in open space planning, with a focus on promoting connectivity and biodiversity (Kambites and Owen, 2006). By 2006, Benedict and McMahon had expanded on the concept in their keystone book, Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities, which, although not the primary focus, acknowledged the roles that trees and green spaces play in managing stormwater.

      4.2  The Birth of Low Impact Development

      Concurrent with this attention to the role of land conservation and urban greening, municipalities began experimenting with the use of natural processes to manage stormwater, recognizing stormwater’s detrimental effects on sensitive waterbodies along with the ineffectiveness of state-of-the-art detention and water quality ponds to cope with increasing urbanization. In 1990, Prince George’s County, Maryland, pioneered the concept of low impact development (LID) in response to the Chesapeake Bay’s declining health. Bioretention was tested as an alternative to then-current best management practices for commercial and residential stormwater treatment, basing techniques on native forest ecosystem and landscape processes to enhance stormwater quality (Bitter and Bowers, 1994). The Low Impact Development Center was established in Maryland in 1998 and, in 1999, Prince George’s County published a guidebook on LID strategies that emphasized watershed-based hydrologic analysis and measures to mimic predevelopment hydrology through site planning, erosion and sediment control, and distributed integrated management practices. The U.S. EPA-supported document, which focused on new development, described integrating stormwater controls to multifunctional landscape elements to manage runoff at the source, stating:

      [Low impact development] offers an innovative alternative approach to urban stormwater management that uniformly or strategically integrates stormwater controls into multifunctional landscape features where runoff can be micromanaged and controlled at the sources. With LID, every urban landscape or infrastructure feature (roof, streets, parking, sidewalks, and green space) can be designed to be multifunctional, incorporating detention, retention, filtration, or runoff use (Prince George’s County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources, 1999).

      Maryland’s Center for Watershed Protection co-evolved with the Low Impact Development Center, with the mission of research and education related to stormwater management and watershed planning (CWP, 2013). Low Impact Development (LID): A Literature Review, published by U.S. EPA in 2000, described small-scale LID practices and trial projects in Maryland, Washington, Florida, and Pennsylvania, outlining successes and challenges in applying LID techniques to minimize urban hydrologic effects to streams and on water quality.

      During the 1990s, Portland, Oregon’s, Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) developed urban stormwater policies and codes, including sustainable stormwater management practices that mimicked natural systems, and initiated a downspout disconnection program and several demonstration projects to address combined sewer overflows (CSOs) into streams and rivers. A seminal project of BES was the installation of a series of swales in the OMSI museum parking lot (1990), which were audited in 1996 and found to capture pollutants and to reduce water flows. Other early Portland projects included stormwater planters, infiltration gardens and swales, ecoroofs, and, in 2001, initiation of the city’s first sustainable infrastructure program (Liptan and Murase, 2002; WERF, 2013).

      In Seattle, Washington, Dr. Richard Horner and his colleagues at the University of Washington documented the deleterious stormwater effects of impervious surfaces on the region’s streams and wetlands, spurring Seattle’s Street Edge Alternatives Project (SEA Streets), constructed in 2001. These projects were monitored and found to exceed expectations for detaining, infiltrating, and treating stormwater; the subsequent published results heavily influenced Seattle and other cities’ policies for implementing urban natural drainage techniques (Horner and Chapman, 2007; Horner et al., 2002).

      4.3  Green Infrastructure Gaining Momentum

      With proof of the effects of stormwater on water quality and the effectiveness of low impact techniques, demonstration projects began to proliferate in U.S. cities. For example, the New York City Department of Design and Construction and the Design Trust for Public Space published High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines in 2005 as an analog to high-performance building applied to stormwater and streetscapes. In Portland, infiltration gardens in simple residential curb extensions, bioretention cells designed for the ultra-urban context, and school rain gardens served as award-winning design models. Seattle expanded its SEA Streets-type street-side bioretention swales in several-blocks-long green grid sections in the city’s extant creek basins and installed several new LID typologies in a new public housing redevelopment.

      In Washington D.C., the district committed $2 million to LID in response to a lawsuit, a new green roof on the American Society of Landscape Architects headquarters was constructed and monitored, and a measured study projected substantial stormwater and air quality benefits of greening 20% of the city’s roofs (Casey Trees, 2007). In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the city installed green roofs and rain gardens and purchased open space to better manage CSOs that discharge into Lake Michigan. These projects and more in the United States and Canada were documented in Rooftops to Rivers: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows (NRDC, 2006). This publication termed these stormwater-related strategies as green infrastructure, thereby firmly establishing an overarching moniker for the many water-related programs being implemented.

      The need for greater research on green stormwater decision-making processes and applications was also acknowledged. For instance, in 2006, the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) published a guidance document suggesting a process for evaluating the suitability of using decentralized stormwater controls, and, in 2008, the Transportation Research Board published a problem statement calling for an assessment of new and emerging strategies in green storm water infrastructure to address challenges related to climate change (TRB, 2008).

      4.4  Broader Regulatory Acceptance and Recognition of Multiple Benefits

      In 2007, U.S. EPA, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Low Impact Development Center, and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators issued a policy statement recommending that regional administrators be aware of the potential for using green infrastructure to address water quality problems (U.S. EPA et al., 2007). The same year, U.S. EPA began partnerships with several national groups and nonprofits to promote green infrastructure as an environmentally preferable approach to stormwater management. Water Environment Federation has since become one of the partner groups, providing technical education and training for professionals. Since 2007, green infrastructure has become more widespread for all aspects of CWA compliance. Significant drivers have included permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, which are outlined in Section 5.0 below. In 2011, and again in 2013, U.S. EPA released updated strategic agendas promoting use of green infrastructure for its multiple environmental, economic and community benefits (U.S. EPA, 2011, 2013b). In 2011, the Natural Resources Defense Council issued an update of their previous report entitled Rooftops to Rivers II: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows, which opened with a new chapter on the multiple benefits of green infrastructure solutions, including stormwater volume control, pollutant removal, water conservation, air quality benefits, reduced heat island effect, reduced energy use, and cost savings. Rooftops to Rivers II: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows (NRDC, 2011) also references the joint Center for Neighborhood Technology and American Rivers (2010) publication, The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits, in which documented values of urban greening and green stormwater practices are detailed and quantified. This publication also includes the carbon dioxide sequestration values of green infrastructure practices, firmly bringing climate change considerations into the stormwater conversation. In the spring of 2012, U.S. EPA recognized this broader approach to green infrastructure, citing the multiple advantages of community, energy, water, air, and habitat provided by green infrastructure (U.S. EPA, 2013c). Publications by U.S. EPA and other organizations have begun citing the value of green infrastructure technologies for climate adaptation and mitigation (e.g., American Rivers et al. [2012]; Center for Clean Air Policy [2011]; Condon et al. [2009]; U.S. EPA [2008]). These publications advocate the use of green infrastructure to reduce the severity of climate change and for resiliency in adapting to its inevitable effects.

      Being a green city is linked to vitality and growth. Former Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, strove to make Chicago a green city. He proclaimed Chicago the city of the future in both opportunity and quality of life. In addition to quality of life, to Daley, being a green city translated to economic vitality and environmental stewardship. Partially in response to hundreds of heat-related deaths in 1995, green infrastructure practices such as green roofs and tree cover became areas of focus to counteract heat island effects. Implementation of green roofs was incentivized through a relaxation of building density rules and other benefits when green roofs are installed. As a result, by 2010, the city dataset reflected 359 vegetated roofs, including approximately 511 m² (5.5 mil. sq ft) of green roof coverage (City of Chicago, 2013; Conaway, 2010; Ferkenhoff, 2006). Chicago initiated its green alley program primarily in response to pavement deterioration. City officials noted that alleys were poorly drained and generally did not include storm drainage structures. Therefore, permeable pavement became an attractive solution for these dual issues.

      In 2013, the mayor of Seattle proclaimed that the city would manage 2650 ML (700 mil. gal) of stormwater annually using green stormwater infrastructure by 2025. The choice was based not only on water quality and flood prevention benefits, but also the ability to provide additional community benefits and public value. Benefits that were identified include green space, urban tree canopy recovery, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and increased pedestrian and bicycle safety (City of Seattle, 2013).

      With proven cost and performance effectiveness of green stormwater techniques, and increased regulatory demands on new and existing urbanization, municipalities and governing agencies have recognized the multiple benefits that infrastructure can provide by adopting new programs, standards, and codes and developing guidance materials for planners and designers. This dramatic shift in stormwater management from single-purpose technologies that often result in bigger downstream problems to practices that use the living process of natural systems to regulate and repair natural systems for their health and the ecosystem services they provide, replays and builds upon Olmsted’s approach in Boston’s Back Bay Fens. This current attitude toward green infrastructure also follows Marsh’s urging that we can effectively co-work with nature to reconstruct, and prevent degradation of, our natural heritage of clean, healthy waters.

      5.0  GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE REGULATORY DRIVERS

      Various regulatory programs have served as significant drivers for green infrastructure. At the federal level, these programs primarily relate to CWA and its amendments. State and local programs also encourage green infrastructure through local stormwater management standards for flow and quality management. Regulations form a continually changing landscape, and vary from locale to locale and over time.

      The 1987 amendments to CWA resulted in permits for stormwater discharges. Among the requirements of this program were the development of postdevelopment stormwater management controls, stormwater pollution prevention for industrial activities, sediment and erosion control for construction activities, and total maximum daily load (TMDL) implementation (WEF and ASCE, 2012).

      Postdevelopment stormwater management controls regulate new development and redevelopment activities. Postdevelopment controls are the primary mechanism by which permit holders are changing regulations to incorporate green infrastructure. The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits also require compliance with TMDLs. Total maximum daily load implementation plan requirements are determined at the state level. Total maximum daily load compliance may include the use of green infrastructure.

      Total maximum daily loads establish numeric limits on pollutant loads to receiving waters. They are developed for impaired waterbodies on a pollutant-specific basis and consider all pollutant sources (point and nonpoint). Total maximum daily loads develop waste-load allocations considering point sources, nonpoint sources, and a margin of safety. The effect on stormwater management is that TMDLs are often incorporated by reference to stormwater permits, which may lead to the development of TMDL implementation plans. These plans may call for various measures to control stormwater pollutant discharges, including green infrastructure practices. In some locations, these plans include requirements to retrofit previously developed sites with green infrastructure to reduce runoff and pollutant discharge. Total maximum daily loads are most commonly derived for sediment, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), pathogens, and metals, although TMDLs have been developed for such items as benthic impairment and trash.

      Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires federal facilities to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. This leads to implementation of various green infrastructure and stormwater practices.

      Green infrastructure as an element of CSO long-term control plans (LTCPs) began in earnest in 2008. Early CSO consent decrees primarily included green infrastructure in supplemental environmental projects or in addition to traditional structural controls. Examples of significant CSO consent decrees and their initial green infrastructure components are listed in Table 1.2.

      TABLE 1.2   Significant CSO enforcement actions with green infrastructure elements.

      Many of these CSO programs are taking an adaptive management approach to incorporation of green infrastructure. That is, they are using pilot and demonstration projects to evaluate the costs and benefits of green infrastructure and then using those results to determine how and to what extent green infrastructure can cost-effectively play a role in LTCP. Because of this, many municipalities are adapting their plans and refining their approach as they develop new information.

      In June 2012, U.S. EPA issued a memorandum on integrated municipal stormwater and wastewater planning (U.S. EPA, 2012a). The primary objective of this approach was to help identify efficiencies in implementation of wastewater and stormwater programs, including prioritization of capital investments. Integrating planning is relevant in that it can facilitate the use of sustainable and comprehensive solutions, including green infrastructure, that protect human health, improve water quality, manage stormwater as a resource, and support other economic benefits and quality of life attributes that enhance the vitality of communities (U.S. EPA, 2012a).

      Most stormwater management requirements are embedded in local codes and ordinances. Before the MS4 program, a number of municipalities had begun to implement site development standards that required volume control, primarily for the objective of flood protection. This tended to result in detention basins that were only activated during large wet weather events. With MS4 requirements for postconstruction stormwater controls, and with an increasing awareness on the part of local communities of water quality issues, many local jurisdictions have either developed or modified standards and regulations. Volumetric controls were applied to both small and large storms, and water quality features were added. These standards resulted in an evolution from such practices as dry detention basins to extended wet detention basins to LID. Local standards can also be geared toward practices that control pollutants of site-specific interest. For example, North Carolina requires control of nitrogen discharges in the main watersheds of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins through the application of postconstruction stormwater controls in larger communities (North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2009).

      6.0  REFERENCES

      American Rivers; Water Environment Federation; American Society of Landscape Architects; ECONorthwest (2012) Banking on Green: A Look at How Green Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money and Provide Economic Benefits Community-Wide. http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/reports-and-publications/banking-on-green-report.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      Benedict, M. A.; McMahon, E. T. (2006) Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities; Island Press: Washington, D.C.

      Benedict, M. A.; McMahon, E. T. (2002) Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century; The Conservation Fund: Arlington, Virginia.

      Bitter, S.; Bowers, J. K. (1994) Bioretention as a Water Quality Best Management Practice. Watershed Protection Tech., 1 (3), 26.

      Casey Trees (2007) The Green Build-Out Model: Quantifying the Stormwater Management Benefits of Trees and Green Roofs in Washington, D.C. http://www.capitolgreenroofs.com/pdfs/Green_Infrastructure_Report.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      Center for Clean Air Policy (2011) The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation. http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/Green_Infrastructure_FINAL.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      Center for Neighborhood Technology; American Rivers (2010) The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits. http://www.cnt.org/repository/gi-values-guide.pdf (accessed May 2014).

      Center for Watershed Protection (2013) http://cwp.org/history-and-accomplishments (accessed June 2013).

      City of Chicago (2013) City of Chicago Official Web Site. Urban Green Roofs. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/chicago_green_roofs.html (accessed June 2013).

      City of New York (2012) DEC and DEP Announce Groundbreaking Agreement to Reduce Combined Sewer Overflows Using Green Infrastructure in New York City. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/press_releases/12-17pr.shtml (accessed Jan 2014).

      City of Seattle (2013) Executive Order: 2013-01: Citywide Green Stormwater Infrastructure Goal & Implementation Strategy. http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/GSI-exec-order.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      Conaway, J. (2010) Chicago: America’s Green City. http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/city-guides/chicago-green-traveler/ (accessed June 2013).

      Condon, P. M.; Cavens, D.; Miller, N. (2009) Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation (Policy Focus Report); Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge, Massachusetts. http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1573_Urban-Planning-Tools (accessed June 2013).

      Center for Neighborhood Technology; American Rivers (2010) The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits. http://www.cnt.org/repository/gi-values-guide.pdf (accessed May 2014).

      Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Florida Division of Forestry; West Florida Regional Planning Council (2011) Northwest Florida Green Infrastructure Design. http://70.167.229.112/barc/Northwest%20Florida%20Green%20Infrastructure%20Design.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      Fabos, J. G.; Ahern, J., Eds. (1995) Greenways: Special Issue. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33, 1–482.

      Ferkenhoff, E. (2006) The Greening of Chicago. Time Magazine, May 12.

      Flink, C.; Searns, R. I. (1993) Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design and Development; Island Press, Washington, D.C.

      Horner, R. R.; Chapman, C. (2007) NW 110th Street Natural Drainage System Performance Monitoring, with Summary Viewlands and 2nd Avenue NW SEA Streets Monitoring; Report to Seattle Public Utilities by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

      Horner, R. R.; Lim, H.; Burges, S. J. (2002) Hydrologic Monitoring of the Seattle Ultra-Urban Stormwater Management Projects. Water Resources Series Technical Report Number 170; University of Washington, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Seattle, Washingon.

      Kambites, C.; Owen, S. (2006) Renewed Prospects for Green Infrastructure Planning in the UK. Planning, Practice Res., 21 (4), 483–496.

      Liptan, T.; Murase R. K. (2002) Water Gardens as Stormwater Infrastructure (Portland, Oregon). In Handbook of Water Sensitive Design; Robert France, Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida.

      Little, C. E. (1990) Greenways for America; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, Maryland.

      Marsh, G. P. (1965) Man and Nature; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts; p 35.

      New York City Department of Design and Construction; Design Trust for Public Space (2005) High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines. http://www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/downloads/pdf/hpig.pdf (accessed May 2014).

      North Carolina Division of Water Quality (2009) Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual; Chapter 2, North Carolina’s Stormwater Requirements. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e8f09947-5f5a-414c-a453-90de49cfc984&groupId=38364 (accessed June 2013).

      Natural Resources Defense Council (2006) Rooftops to Rivers: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows. http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftops/rooftops.pdf (accessed May 2014).

      Natural Resources Defense Council (2011) Rooftops to Rivers II: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows. http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsii/files/rooftopstoriversII.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011) Consent Order and Agreement. http://phillywatersheds.org/doc/LTCP_COA_2011.pdf (accessed May 2014).

      Prince George’s County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources (1999) Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach; Prince George’s County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources: Largo, Maryland.

      Smith D. S.; Hellmund, P. C. (1993) Ecology of Greenways; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, Minnesota.

      Spirn, A. W. (1998) The Language of Landscape; Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut; p 70.

      Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2008) Problem No. 2010-B-15. http://www.trb.org/nchrp/pages/nchrp_unselected_problem_2010-b-15_202.aspx (accessed Jan 2014).

      U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division (2011) United States of America, the State of Missouri and the Missouri Conference for the Environment Foundation v. the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. Case No. 4:07-CV-1120 (CEJ). Consent Decree. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/civil/cwa/stlouis-cd.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (2009) Atlantic States Legal Foundation, State of New York, and Alexander B. Grannis v. Onondaga County Department of Drainage and Sanitation and Onondaga County, New York. 88-CV-0066. Filed 11/16/2009. http://www.onlakepartners.org/ppdf/olwpaas/Ref1%20ACJ/2009%20ACJ%20 4th%20stip.pdf (accessed Jan 2014).

      U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (2013) United States of America and the State of Washington (Plaintiffs) v. the City of Seattle, Washington. Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-678. Filed 4/16/2013. http://www.seattle.gov/Util/groups/public/@spu/@drainsew/documents/webcontent/02_030700.pdf (accessed May 2014).

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Low Impact Development (LID): A Literature Review; EPA-841/B-00-005; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Using Green Infrastructure to Protect Water Quality in Stormwater, SCO, Nonpoint Source and other Water Programs. Memorandum from Ben Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, March 5.

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Association of Clean Water Agencies; Natural Resources Defense Council; Low Impact Development Center; Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (2007) Green Infrastructure Statement of Intent. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/gi_intentstatement.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies. http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/resources/compendium.htm (accessed June 2013).

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) A Strategic Agenda to Protect Waters and Build More Livable Communities Through Green Infrastructure. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/gi_agenda_protectwaters.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012a) Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Approach Framework. Office of Water and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/integrated_planning_framework.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012b) Consent Decrees that Include Green Infrastructure Provisions. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/EPA-Green-Infrastructure-Supplement-1-061212-PJ.pdf (accessed Jan 2014).

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013a) Low Impact Development. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/index.cfm (accessed June 2013).

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013b) Green Infrastructure Strategic Agenda 2013. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/2013_GI_FINAL_Agenda_101713.pdf, p. 2 (accessed Jan 2014).

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013c) Green Infrastructure Web Page. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm (accessed June 2014).

      Water Environment Research Foundation (2006) Decentralized Stormwater Controls for Urban Retrofit and Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction. http://www.werf.org/a/ka/Search/ResearchProfile.aspx?ReportId=03-SW-3 (accessed Jan 2014).

      Water Environment Research Foundation (2013) Case Studies, Portland, Oregon. http://www.werf.org/liveablecommunities/studies_port_or.htm (accessed June 2013).

      Water Environment Federation; American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental & Water Resources Institute (2012) Design of Urban Stormwater Controls; WEF Manual of Practice No. 23; ASCE/EWRI Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 87; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.

      7.0  SUGGESTED READINGS

      City of New York (2013) PlaNYC Progress Report 2013. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_progress_report_2013.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      Hufnagel, C.; Struck, S. (2012) Core Elements of Green Infrastructure Programs for CSO Control. Proccedings of the Water Environment Federation Stormwater Specialty Conference; Baltimore, Maryland, July 18–20; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.

      Kansas City Water Services Department (2009) Kansas City, Missouri, Overflow Control Plan Overview. Kansas City Water Services Department: Kansas City, Missouri. http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/water/documents/ckcmowebassets/plan_overview.pdf (accessed May 2014).

      Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (2009) Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan, Final CSO Long-Term Control Plan Volume 1 and 2 of 3; Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District: Louisville, Kentucky.

      Millia, M.; Marengo, B. G.; Marko, M.; Fordiani, R.; Potts, A.; Wible, D. (2011) Onondaga County’s CSO Abatement Program—Lessons Learned and Overcoming Challenges of Large Scale Green Infrastructure Deployment. Proceedings of the 84th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Los Angeles, California, Oct 15–19; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.

      New York City Department of Design and Construction; Design Trust for Public Space (2003) High Performance Infrastructure: Best Practices for the Public Right-of-Way. http://cnunext.org/icharrette/documents/874Brown.pdf (accessed May 2014).

      Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (2011) Green Infrastructure Plan. http://www.neorsd.org/I_Library.php?a=download_file&LIBRARY_RECORD_ID=5526 (accessed May 2014).

      Struck, S.; Hufnagel, C.; Field, R. (2012) Prioritization of Green Infrastructure for CSO Communities—Identifying Effective Implementation Opportunities. Proceedings of the World Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2012; Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 20–24; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, Virginia.

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure Case Studies; EPA-841/F-10-004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: Washington, D.C.

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983) Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Executive Summary; National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Ascension Number PB84-185545; U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division: Washington, D.C.

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Use of Green Infrastructure in NPDES Permits and Enforcement. Memorandum from Water Permit and Enforcement Division directors to U.S. EPA regions and enforcement coordinators and state NPDES directors, August 16. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/gi_memo_enforce.pdf (accessed June 2013).

      2

      Navigating the Institutional Landscape

      Brandon C. Vatter, P.E. and Kelly Karll, P.E.

      1.0  INTRODUCTION

      2.0  COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

      2.1  Defining Measurable Goals and Objectives of a Green Infrastructure Program

      2.1.1  Regulatory, Environmental, and Ecological Goals and Objectives

      2.1.2  Economic Goals and Objectives

      2.1.3  Social Goals and Objectives

      2.1.4  Setting Long-Term and Interim Targets for Green Infrastructure Implementation

      2.2  Summary of Measurable Goals and Objectives of a Green Infrastructure Program

      3.0  STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN SETTING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

      4.0  UNDERSTANDING THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN A COMMUNITY

      4.1  State-Level Barriers and Roles and Responsibilities

      4.1.1  Barriers

      4.1.2  Roles and Responsibilities

      4.2  Regional-Level Barriers and Roles and Responsibilities

      4.2.1  Barriers

      4.2.2  Roles and Responsibilities

      4.3  Local-Level Barriers and Roles and Responsibilities

      4.3.1  Barriers

      4.3.2  Roles and Responsibilities

      4.3.2.1  Community Planning Departments

      4.3.2.2  Public Works, Streets, and Roads Departments

      4.3.2.3  City and County Parks and Recreation

      4.3.2.4  Community and Economic Development Department

      4.3.2.5  Local Developers and Engineers/Architects

      4.3.2.6  Local Nonprofit Groups

      4.3.2.7  Foundations

      4.3.2.8  Colleges and Universities

      5.0  REFERENCES

      6.0  SUGGESTED READINGS

      1.0  INTRODUCTION

      Many U.S. communities ranging in size, population, and geographic location are looking for ways to ensure that the quality of their rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries are improved and protected from the effects of development and urbanization. Many communities are also facing increasing regulatory requirements and significant costs to address sewer overflows, flooding, basement backups, and other Clean Water Act (CWA) obligations. As such, communities are increasingly turning to green infrastructure to address these challenges because green infrastructure offers a range of benefits for the social, environmental, and economic conditions of a community (U.S. EPA, 2010) beyond the traditional gray infrastructure that most communities have used to date. However, because traditional gray infrastructure is mostly buried below grade and is often out of sight (and, therefore, out of mind) to the public, community involvement has historically been isolated and minimal. In contrast, green infrastructure is a community-focused program that is visible and useable by the public; therefore, a successful green infrastructure program is achieved through involvement of the community and local stakeholders right from the start. This chapter describes how to successfully navigate the institutional landscape (i.e., work with the various city or community government and nongovernment departments and local stakeholders) to implement a successful green infrastructure program within a community.

      Transitioning to green infrastructure is a multidecade effort that requires enhanced public outreach, intensive monitoring, and intergovernmental coordination (Eger, 2011). For a lead agency wanting to implement a green infrastructure program (green infrastructure lead agency), the agency has typically been a municipal sewerage agency that falls within one of three primary categories: (1) sewer agency as part of a city/county department; (2) sewer agency as a city/county department, but also serving areas outside of the city/ county; and (3) a sewer agency that is a regional agency overlaid on a single or multiple municipalities separate from an individual city or county. In addition, the sewerage agency may or may not have jurisdiction over stormwater infrastructure or permitting. On the surface, it may appear that navigating the institutional landscape may be difficult. However, for the green infrastructure lead agency, regardless of jurisdictional form, wanting to navigate the community’s institutional landscape to implement a successful green infrastructure program begins with bringing community stakeholders together to educate, inform, and reach endorsement for the following commonalities:

      •  Need for a green infrastructure program;

      •  Overall goals and objectives of the green infrastructure program;

      •  Form the green infrastructure program should take;

      •  Roles and responsibilities, financial and nonfinancial, of each stakeholder for implementation of a successful green infrastructure program; and

      •  How barriers to implementation will be overcome.

      For the green infrastructure lead agency, the aforementioned concepts and responsibilities need to be developed, planned, and implemented as a community-accepted and -involved initiative and not solely as a wastewateror stormwater-utility-focused initiative (U.S. EPA, 2013). This stakeholder outreach will also pay dividends when it comes time to gain the support and understanding of the community for rate fee increases to fund the community’s CWA obligations. Having a broad base of the community informed and supportive of the need for regulatory obligations, associated costs, and how green infrastructure can provide triple bottom line benefits (i.e., social, environmental, and economic) at costs equal or less than gray infrastructure at the onset of a green infrastructure program will allow the green infrastructure lead agency to gain the public support needed for success.

      2.0  COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

      Navigating the institutional landscape begins with bringing stakeholders together to define the need for a green infrastructure program, the overall goals and objectives of the program, and the form the program should take. Although this process may be foreign to typical wastewater or stormwater utilities wanting to start a green infrastructure program, it is absolutely essential. Green infrastructure provides numerous benefits, such as environmental enhancement and community engagement, and can serve as a catalyst for economic development. Because green infrastructure is a source-based control, it necessitates involving many different stakeholders within a municipality to achieve these benefits. Even though the impetus for implementing green infrastructure may be from the local wastewater or stormwater utility (i.e., green infrastructure lead agency), because green infrastructure is sited where stormwater falls and is typically visible to all, green infrastructure, by definition, must involve both public and private communities. Moreover, all stakeholders need to work together and reach consensus on the need and value of green infrastructure to overcome barriers to implementation and to achieve long-term success. As such, clear goals and objectives of the green infrastructure program overall should be developed with all of the stakeholders at the start of the program to reach consensus and have a clear understanding of why green infrastructure is being implemented and the projected end results.

      A green infrastructure program should begin with the green infrastructure lead agency determining all of the stakeholders in the community and inviting them to, and engaging them in, workshops or similar forums to educate them on the need for a green infrastructure program and its associated benefits to the entire community and to develop measurable goals and objectives. A lack of focus and preparation at the outset can lead to a loss of enthusiasm that may be difficult to recover. A list of potential stakeholders to consider engaging in a given community is shown in Table 2.1. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but to represent the wide range of stakeholders within a community that should be engaged and informed at the start of a green infrastructure program.

      2.1  Defining Measurable Goals and Objectives of a Green Infrastructure Program

      With stakeholders now present at workshops, the green infrastructure lead agency can use this opportunity to make them part of its green infrastructure planning and implementation team. First, it is important to educate stakeholders on why they are attending the workshop, why they are being talked to about green infrastructure, and the various benefits green infrastructure can provide. In addition, stakeholders should learn what the lead agency’s regulatory obligations are, the costs involved in meeting the obligations, and how green infrastructure can play a role in affordably meeting the obligations to provide more water quality and community benefits to citizens.

      Next, it is important to tell stakeholders what is needed from them. For example, the first thing the green infrastructure lead agency needs from stakeholders is use of their diverse experience, knowledge, and abilities to jointly develop measurable goals and objectives for the green infrastructure program. The following are key questions to ask stakeholders to begin this goal- and objective-setting process:

      •  Why should a green infrastructure program be implemented in our community (environmental and regulatory)?

      TABLE 2.1   Potential stakeholders to consider engaging in your community.

      •  Where is the water pollution coming from (multiple sources) and how can green infrastructure address local and regional water pollution sources?

      •  How do we view green infrastructure fitting into our community?

      •  What obstacles or barriers exist that need to be addressed to implement a green infrastructure program?

      •  What are the stakeholders’ biggest concerns?

      •  How can stakeholders support the program? and

      •  What are the desired outcomes for the green infrastructure program to

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1