California San Francisco Low Impact Design Toolkit For Stormwater

W h a t w i l l y o u d o w i t h S a n Fra n c i s c o s S t o r m wa t e r ?
Low Impact Design Toolkit
L O W I M PA C T D E S I G N T O O L K I T
ii
U R B A N S T O R M WAT E R P L A N N I N G C H A R R E T T E S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 7
iii
Urban Watershed Planning Charrette September 27, 2007 Bayside Conference Rooms, Pier 1 San Francisco, CA Project Team: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Arleen Navarret: Program Manager, WWPRD Rosey Jencks: Project Manager Leslie Webster: Design, Layout, and Illustrations With research and editorial assistance from: EDAW Kerry McWalter Megan Walker Mark Winsor Metcalf & Eddy Scott Durbin Kimberly Shorter David Wood Cover image: Map of San Francisco drainage basins and historic hydrology
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Management and Planning 1145 Market Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 http://stormwater.sfwater.org
iv
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Introduction 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. E co-R oofs Downspout Disconnection Cisterns Rain Gardens Bioretention Planter s Permeable Paving Detention Basins The Urban Forest Stream Daylighting 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42
1 0. Constructed Wetlands
Introduction
Summary
Thank you for participating in todays Urban Watershed Planning Charrette. A charrette is a collaborative session in which a group of designers, planners or engineers draft a solution to a design problem. Charrettes often take place in sessions in which larger groups divide into sub-groups and then present their work to the full group as material for future dialogue and planning. Charrettes serve as a way of quickly drafting design solutions while integrating the aptitudes and interests of a diverse group of people. While there are many planning challenges facing San Francisco, this charette will focus on integrating San Franciscos urban stormwater into its built environment using green stormwater management technologies collectively known as Best Management Practices (BMPs), Low Impact Design (LID) or Green Infrastructure. The goal is to identify LID techniques that reduce the peak ows and volumes of runoff entering the combined sewers. LID has the potential to increase the systems treatment efciency by delaying and/or reducing the volumes of runoff owing to the combined sewer, providing stormwater treatment, enhancing environmental protection of receiving waters, and reducing the volume and frequency of combined sewer overows (CSOs). These technologies, if properly designed can also provide auxiliary benets that include, beautication, groundwater recharge, and habitat enhancement. They can be placed into the existing urban fabric to give streets, parks, plazas, medians and tree wells multiple functions.
Introduction
Pre-development conditions in San Francisco
Existing conditions in San Francisco
What is Low Impact Design?

Before San Francisco developed into the thriving city it is today, it consisted of a diverse range of habitats including of oak woodlands, native grasslands, creeks, riparian areas, wetlands, and sand dunes. These habitats provided food and forage for a wide range of plants, animals and insects. The natural hydrologic cycle, working its way through each of these ecosystems, kept the air and water clean and recharged the groundwater. Today, much of the city is paved or built upon and plumbed with a combined sewer to convey stormwater and wastewater. Former creeks have been diverted to the sewers and wastewater from homes and runoff from rain events ow to treatment facilities where it is treated and discharged into the bay and the ocean. During large storm events, the combined sewer system occasionally discharges partially treated ows into surrounding water bodies and oods neighborhoods. In areas not served by the combined sewer, stormwater discharges directly into water bodies untreated. A large quantity of impervious surfaces means that there are very few places where inltration can occur and groundwater is depleted.
Introduction
LID is a stormwater management approach that aims to re-create and mimic these pre-development hydrologic processes by increasing retention, detention, inltration, and treatment of stormwater runoff at its source. LID is a distinct management strategy that emphasizes on-site source control and multi-functional design, rather than conventional pipes and gutters. Whereas BMPs are the individual, discrete water quality controls, LID is a comprehensive, watershed- or catchment-based approach. These decentralized, smallscale stormwater controls allow greater adaptability to changing environmental and economic conditions than centralized systems. LID has the potential to prevent the volume of combined sewer overows and localized ooding in San Francisco by slowing or intercepting stormwater before it reaches the sewer pipes. Roof runoff from buildings can be intercepted by eco-roofs. The downspouts from roofs can be redirected to landscaped areas or cisterns where the water can be stored and used during the dry seasons for irrigation or other non-potable uses.
Potential LID additions to urban hydrology Downspout disconnection Detention basins Rain gardens
Eco-roofs
Street tree planting
Constructed wetlands
Bioretention planters Cisterns Stream daylighting
Permeable paving
Introduction
Runoff from streets, parking lots and other paved areas can be directed to detention basins, or bioretention planters where it is ltered and inltrated. An expanded urban forest, can also intercept and uptake excess water. Historic creeks can be returned to the surface and diverted away from the sewer system. Together, these approaches decrease increase the efciency of the sewer system and treatment facilities, reduce the likelihood of ooding and sewer overows, and recharge our local groundwater reserves.
To d a y s G a m e
For the purposes of the Urban Watershed Planning Charrette each team will be asked to apply appropriate stormwater BMPs within the boundaries of San Franciscos four eastern catchments. Each BMP performs specic functions such as delaying peak ows that reduce ooding and reducing stormwater volumes that can be quantied based on studies and modeling that has been calibrated for San Francisco. This booklet introduces and describes the benets and limitations of each BMP used in todays charrette. Each basin has a set of stormwater management goals for peak ow and volume reduction. Your job is to identify appropriate locations for the BMPs described in this booklet to address surface water management goals in your basin. Your team then calculates the benets and costs and determines how closely you meet your stormwater management goals and stay within your budget. Each turn will consist of placing your BMP in the landscape and tallying the benets and costs. Be sure to look for opportunities for partnerships, multi-purpose projects and synergies between adjacent or nearby developments within the neighborhood. The following toolkit describes each BMP and provides specic details on the benets and limitations, design details, and the costs of implementation and maintenance.
Eco-Roofs
Summary
Green roofs, or eco-roofs, are roofs that are entirely or partially covered with vegetation and soils. Eco-roofs have been popular in Europe for decades and have grown in popularity in the U.S. recently as they provide multiple environmental benets. Eco-roofs improve water quality by ltering contaminants as the runoff ows through the growing medium or through direct plant uptake. Studies have shown reduced concentrations of suspended solids, copper, zinc, and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) from eco-roof runoff. The engineered soils absorb rainfall and release it slowly, thereby reducing the runoff volumes and delaying peak. Rainfall retention and detention volumes are inuenced by the storage capacity of the engineered soils, antecedent moisture conditions, rainfall intensity, and duration. A typical eco-roof has been found to retain 50 to 65 percent of annual rainfall and reduce peak ows for large rain events (those exceeding 1.5 inches) by approximately 50 percent. Eco-roofs fall under two categories: intensive or extensive. Intensive roofs, or rooftop gardens, are heavier, support larger vegetation and can usually designed for use by people. Extensive eco-roofs are lightweight, uninhabitable, and use smaller plants. Eco-roofs can be installed on most types of commercial, multifamily, and industrial structures, as well as on single-family homes, garages, and sheds. Eco-roofs can be used for new construction or to re-roof an existing building. Candidate roofs for a green retrot must have sufcient structural support to hold the additional weight of the eco-roof, which is generally 10 to 25 pounds per square foot saturated for extensive roofs and more for intensive roofs.
Intensive eco-roof in Zurich, Switzerland
PHOTO BY ROSEY JENCKS
Eco-Roofs
Benefits
Provides insulation and can lower cooling
costs for the building Extends the life of the roof a green roof can last twice as long as a conventional roof, saving replacement costs and materials Provides noise reduction Reduces the urban heat island effect Lowers the temperature of stormwater runoff, which maintains cool stream and lake temperatures for sh and other aquatic life Creates habitat and increases biodiversity in the city Provides aesthetic and recreational amenities
Extensive eco-roof in Seattle, WA

Limitations
Poor design or installation can lead to potential leakage and/or roof failure
Limited to roof slopes less than 20 degrees

(40 percent or a 5 in 12 pitch)
Requires additional structural support to

bear the added weight
Potentially increased seismic hazards with

increased roof weight
Long payback time for installation costs

based on energy savings
May attract unwanted wildlife Inadequate drainage can result in mosquito breeding Irrigation may be necessary to establish plants and maintain them during extended dry periods Vegetation requires maintenance and can look overgrown or weedy, seasonally it can appear dead
Extensive eco-roof and detention basin in Germany
C a s e S t u d y : To r o n t o , O n t a r i o
The City of Toronto initiated a green roof demonstration project in 2000 to find solutions to overcome technical, financial and information barriers to the widespread adoption of green roof infrastructure in the marketplace. In February 2006, the Toronto City Council approved the Green Roof Pilot Program, allocating $200,000 from Toronto waters budget to encourage green roof construction. Subsidies of $10 per square meter ($0.93 per square foot) and up to a maximum of $20,000 will be available to private property owners for new and retrofit green roof projects. Additionally, the Green Roof Strategy recommended the following actions: use green roofs for all new and replacement roofs on city-owned buildings; use zoning and financial incentives to make green roofs more economically desirable; initiate an education and publicity program for green roofs; provide technical and design assistance to those interested in green roof building; identify a green roofs resource person for each city division; develop a database of green roofs in the city; conduct and support ongoing monitoring and research on green roofs; add a green roof category to the Green Toronto Awards; and establish partnerships with other institutions.
Eco-Roofs
Design Details
An intensive eco-roof may consist of shrubs and small trees planted in deep soil (more than 6 inches) arranged with walking paths and seating areas and often provide access for people. In contrast, an extensive eco-roof includes shallow layers (less than 6 inches) of low-growing vegetation and is more appropriate for roofs with structural limitations. Both categories of eco-roofs include engineered soils as a growing medium, subsurface drainage piping, and a waterproof membrane to protect the roof structure. Based on ndings from the City of Portland (2006) and the Puget Sound Action Team (2005), roofs with slopes up to 40 degrees are appropriate for extensive eco-roofs, though slopes between 5 and 20 degrees are most suitable (slope ration of 1:12 and 5:12). All eco-roofs are assembled in layers. The top layer includes the engineered soils and the plants. The soil is a lightweight mix that includes some organic material. Under the soil is a drainage layer that includes lter fabric to keep sediment from the soil in place and a core material that stores water and allows it to drain off the roof surface. Next is the root barrier, which prevents the roots from puncturing the waterproof membrane that lies below it, and nally there is the roof structure.
Extensive eco-roof Layers: Most suitable slope of 5 to 20 degrees Gravel Drought tolerant plants Growing medium (>2) Filter fabric Drainage and storage Root barrier and waterproof membrane
Leaf screen
Roof structure Overflow enters the gutter system
Cost and Maintenance

A typical roof size of a single-family home in San Francisco is estimated at 1,500 square feet, while commercial developments are closer to 10,000 square feet. The costs of eco-roofs vary widely depending on the size and the type of roof but average $18 per square foot to install. Each eco-roof installation will have specic operation and maintenance guidelines provided by the manufacturer or installer. Once an eco-roof is mature, maintenance is limited to the vegetation. Intensive eco-roofs generally require more continued maintenance than extensive roong systems. In the rst few years watering, light weeding, and occasional plant feeding will ensure that the roof becomes established. Routine inspection of the waterproof membrane and the drainage systems are important to the roof longevity. Annual maintenance costs are estimated at $5.49 per square foot, which includes aeration, plant and soil inspection, ow monitoring and reporting.
Case Study: Chicago, IL
Eco-Roofs
Chicagos first green roof was a 20,000 square foot roof on the City Hall that was constructed in 2000. In 2005, the city launched its Green Roof Grant Program, awarding $5,000 each to 20 selected residential and small commercial buildings green roof projects (each with a footprint of less than 10,000 square feet). As of October 2006, more than 250 public and private green roofs were under design and construction in Chicago, totaling more than 1 million square feet of green roofs. The city also developed policies that encourage green roof development in Chicago. For example, all new and retrofit roofs in the city must meet a 0.25 solar reflectance, which green roofs are effective in meeting but traditional roofs are not. Also, the city offers a density bonus for roofs that have a minimum of 50 percent vegetative cover.
Case Study: Portland, OR

Portlands Green Roof Initiative began in the mid 1990s, when the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) started investigating the use of eco-roofs to control stormwater in their overburdened combined sewer system. In 1999, the Housing Authority of Portland, in cooperation with BES, built a full-scale green roof on the Hamilton Apartments Building. The eco-roof cost $127,500 (unit cost of $15 per square foot of impervious area managed), with $90,000 of that granted by BES. Portland currently has about 80 eco-roofs built (roughly 8 acres) and another 40 in design or construction phases (roughly 10 acres).
Case Study: San Francisco, CA

San Francisco has several completed and in-process eco-roof projects including: the new Academy of Sciences eco-roof which will be 2.5 acres or approximately 100,000 square feet; the Environmental Living Center in Hunters Point; 2 acre intensive eco-roof on North Beach Place; the Yerba Buena Gardens downtown which is mostly located above a parking garage; and Portsmouth Square another public open space over a garage in Chinatown.
References
City of Chicago. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Chicago Green Roofs. Chicago, IL: Office of the Environment. Available from: http://www.artic.edu/webspaces/greeninitiatives/greenroofs/main.htm City and County of San Francisco. 2006. Low Impact Development Literature Review. Prepared by Carollo Engineers [Unpublished Memo]. City of Portland. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Ecoroofs. Portland, OR: Office of Sustainable Development. Available from: http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?a=bbehci&c=ecbbd, (June 2007). City of Portland. 2006 [cited 2007 Jul]. Ecoroof Questions and Answers. Portland, OR: Bureau of Environmental Services. Available from: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=153098 City of Toronto. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Greenroofs. Toronto, Canada. Available from: www.toronto.ca/greenroofs/ Hopper LJ (Editor). 2006. Living Green Roofs and Landscapes Over Structure. In Time Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture, 2nd Edition, Hoboken. NJ: John Wiley and Sons, p. 367 Low Impact Development Center, Inc. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Maintenance of Greenroofs. Available from: www.lid-stormwater.net/greenroofs/greenroofs_maintain.htm Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2005 [cited 2007 Jul]. Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Action Team and Washington State University Pierce County Extension. Publication No. PSAT 05-03. Available from: www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_tech_manual05/LID_manual2005.pdf
Downspout Disconnection
Summary
Downspout disconnection, also called roof drain diversion, involves diverting rooftop drainage directly into inltration, detention, or storage facilities instead of into the sewer. Rainwater can be harvested from most types of rooftops. In areas where site conditions allow inltration, roof drainage can be conveyed to drainless bioretention planters, dry wells, or can be simply dispersed onto a rain garden, lawn, or landscaped area. On sites that are not amenable to inltration, roof drains can be routed into cisterns which are available in a range of materials, sizes, and models, or under drained bioretention planters that discharge to the sewer (see sections on Cisterns, Bioretention Planters, and Rain Gardens). Roof rainwater harvesting can retain up to 100 percent of roof runoff on site, discharging water in excess of storage capacity owing to the combined sewer.
Downspouts on DaVinci Middle School in Portland, OR are directed to cisterns and a water garden
10
Benefits
Reduces runoff volume and attenuates
peak ows
Limitations
Pre-ltration (such as a rst-ush diverter) is
required if water is to be stored
May decrease water usage through lowered irrigation requirements
Added complexity for buildings with internally plumbed stormwater drains
Low installation costs Low maintenance requirements Large variety of implementation locations
and scales
Secondary system is required to deal with

water after it leaves the downspout, such as a cistern or a rain garden

The cost of roof downspout disconnection for existing buildings varies depending on how the roof is plumbed. Professional installation of new gutters that direct water to another BMP can cost approximately $2,000 per household. In addition to these plumbing costs, the cost of the paired BMP (rain garden, cistern, etc.) also needs to be incorporated and is often the most important element in the system. Maintenance of disconnected downspouts is relatively light. Regular monitoring should check for litter in the gutter system to prevent clogs to the connected BMP that would reduce efciency of stormwater capture. Checking to ensure that all parts of the system are operating properly is important. Additionally, maintenance should be performed for the associated BMP as required.
Rainwater harvesting in Australia
PHOTO BY LESLIE WEBSTER
11
Current conditions
Houses can be plumbed internally or externally
All roof water goes to the sewer
Cisterns can be placed above ground, below ground, or inside the house
Roof water can also be directed to a rain garden or other landscaped area where infiltration is feasible
Overflow goes to the sewer
Disconnection options
12
Design Details
Downspout disconnection consists of diverting roof runoff to a storage or inltration BMP. In San Francisco, many residential properties are plumbed directly to the sewer. Disconnecting a downspout either to collect water requires installing a diverter that directs water from the pipes into the catchment system. Roof runoff water is diverted to a storage or inltration system. Some pretreatment is required before the stormwater can be stored to prevent clogging from leaf litter. The main considerations for designing downspout disconnection and rainwater harvesting systems are: roof drainage conguration, site conditions for a storage tank, construction of new laterals, and desired rainwater uses.

The City of Portland included downspout disconnection in its Cornerstone Projects for reducing the Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). The program began in 1995 and should meet its goals of reducing CSOs by 94% by 2011. Households and small commercial buildings within targeted neighborhoods voluntarily disconnect their roof drains from the sewer system and redirect the flow to either a rain garden or a cistern. Some areas of the city are excluded from the program because of inappropriate slopes and soils. The city pays participants $53 per disconnection, or pays for a contractor to do the work. Community groups earn $13 for each downspout they disconnect. The program currently has 49,000 homeowners participating (about 4,400 disconnections per year from 1995 to 2006), and has removed approximately 1 billion gallons of stormwater per year from the combined sewer system. Disconnection costs around $0.01 per gallon of stormwater permanently removed from the sewer system. The new Clean River Rewards program offers stormwater discounts for property owners who control stormwater on site. This is expanding roof disconnection to other parts of the city.
References
City and County of San Francisco. 2006. Low Impact Development Literature Review. Prepared by Carollo Engineers [Unpublished Memo]. City of Portland. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Downspout Disconnection Bureau of Environmental Services, Available from: http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=43081 Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2005 [cited 2007 Jul]. Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Action Team and Washington State University Pierce County Extension. Publication No. PSAT 05-03. Available from: www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_tech_manual05/LID_manual2005.pdf Texas Water Development Board. 2005 [cited 2007 Jun]. The Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting, Third Edition. Austin, Texas. Available from: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/RainwaterHarvestingManual_3rdedition.pdf TreePeople. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Open Charter Cistern, Available from: http://www.treepeople.org/vfp.dll?OakTree~getPage~&PNPK=150
13
Cisterns
Summary
Cisterns are a traditional technology employed in arid climates to capture and store rainwater. Cisterns reduce the stormwater volume by capturing rainwater for non-potable uses, such as irrigation or ushing toilets. Suitable for a single house or an entire neighborhood, cisterns range in size and may be placed above ground or underground. Smaller, above ground cisterns, also called rain barrels, are appropriate for single homes. Underground cisterns save valuable space in urban locations and are more aesthetically pleasing than surface cisterns but require pumps and other infrastructure in order to reuse the water, making their maintenance and installation more expensive. Large underground cisterns can be placed below various types of open spaces such as parks or athletic elds.
Case Study: Los Angeles, CA

The TreePeople Open Charter Elementary School Project retrofitted a paved schoolyard with stormwater treatment train to slow the flow of water, decrease local flooding events, and decrease the pollutant load. The treatment train consists of three components: a water treatment device; a 110,000 gallon cistern that stores rainwater and feeds the irrigation system; and a system of trees, vegetation and mulched swales that slow, filter and safely channel rainwater through the campus. The water capture and treatment project cost $500,000. TreePeople also completed a project that installed a 250,000 gallon underground cistern in Coldwater Canyon Park, a 2,700 acre watershed retrofit in Sun Valley, in collaboration with the County Department of Public Works.
14
Cisterns
Benefits
peak ows
Limitations
Poor design, sizing, and siting can lead to
potential leakage and/or failure
May decrease water usage if retained for

irrigation purposes or toilet ushing
Low installation costs Low maintenance requirements (for above

ground cisterns) Low space requirements (for underground cisterns) Good for sites where inltration is not an option
Storage capacity is limited Provides no water quality improvements Lower aesthetic appeal (for above ground
cisterns)
Water reuse options limited to non-potable

uses
Requires infrastructure (pumps or valves) to

use the stored water
Inadequate maintenance can result in mosquito breeding and/or algae production

The cost of cisterns varies depending on the size and type of cistern. According to the Low Impact Development Center (2007), small residential rain barrels that connect to the existing gutters can be as inexpensive as $225-$300 for 200-300 gallons of roof storage. A large scaled surface system costs approximately $40,000 for storage of 20,000 gallons of stormwater. Cisterns installed underground tend to have higher installation and maintenance costs. Twice annual inspection is advisable to conrm that all the parts are operable and not leaking. Regular use of the water stored in cisterns between rain events is critical to ensure storage is available for the next storm event. During the rainy season, it can be difcult to use the stored water if because irrigation is generally not necessary. The stored water can be used during the rainy season for other non-potable uses such as toilet ushing or re suppression.
Case Study: Cambria, CA

Cambia Elementary School captures and stores runoff water from the entire school site in a cistern located underneath athletic fields and uses the stored water to irrigate the fields year round. All of the stormwater on the 12 acre campus is captured and stored in large pipes that are located under 130,000 square feet of new athletic fields. Up to 2 million gallons of water can be stored.
Photo from Rehbein Solutions, Inc www.rehbeinsolutions.com/projects/cambria.html
Cistern at Cambria Elementary School
15
Cisterns
Design Details
Proper design, siting, and sizing of cisterns are critical to ensure their full peak ow benets. Stormwater from roof downspouts is stored in the cistern until it is pumped out for use, or it reaches capacity and exits through an overow valve. Cisterns should be designed to outow away from building foundations. Above ground cisterns without a pumping mechanism must be elevated to allow proper water ow. Some pretreatment is required to prevent clogging (e.g. leaf screens and rst-ush diverters) before the stormwater can be stored to prevent clogging from leaf litter. Cisterns need to have access to air and light to avoid the production of algae. Generally, cisterns have a raised manhole opening on the top that allows access for maintenance and monitoring, which should be screened to prevent litter and mosquitoes from entering.
Options for rainwater reuse with a small-scale cistern
Leaf screens on gutters prevent clogging
Maintenance opening has screen to prevent mosquito and litter accumulation
Pump
First flush diverter
Water can be reused for non-potable uses
Sewer backflow prevention device
Overflow enters the combined sewer
16
Cisterns
Mosaic above ground cistern in Tennessee
Case Study: Seattle , WA

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) recently began their RainCatcher Pilot Program, which consists of three different types of rainwater collection systems. First is tight-line, which directs rainwater outflow to a pipe that flows under the yard, through weep holes in the sidewalk reducing volumes deposited in the storm drain via the curb. The second type, the tight-lined cistern, includes a cistern at the point of initial outflow that collects water during the storm event and releases it slowly into the underground pipes. Third, orifice cisterns include an operable valve, which can be opened during the wet season, discharging a small amount of water onto an adjacent permeable surface such as a lawn or rain garden to slow down flow, or closed to store up to 500 gallons of roof runoff, which can be used later for irrigation. Each cistern costs the SPU a total of $1000 with $325 of that sum paying for the wholesale purchase of the cistern and $675 to installation and the SPU overhead. The SPU also sells rain barrels to households in the SPUs direct service areas. The rain barrels cost $59 each for the SPU customers and $69 for non-customers. SPU is currently analyzing the impact of cisterns on the combined sewer system as part of a grant. SPU installs the RainCatcher at no cost to the participant, provides maintenance and support, and evaluates the performance over time.
References
Los Angeles County. 2002 [cited 2007 Jun]. Development Planning for Stormwater Management: A Manual For the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Los Angeles, CA: Department of Public Works. Available from: http://ladpw.org/wmd/NPDES/SUSMP_MANUAL.pdf Low Impact Development Center, Inc. 2007 [cited 2007 May]. Cost of Rain Barrels and Cisterns. Sizing of Rain Barrels and Cisterns. Available from: http://www.lid-stormwater.net/raincist/raincist_cost.htm and http://www.lid-stormwater.net/raincist/raincist_sizing.htm Rehbein Environmental Solutions, Inc. 2007 [cited 2007 May]. Cambria Elementary School. Available from: http:// www.rehbeinsolutions.com/projects/cambria.html Tom Richmond and Associates. 1999 [cited 2007 Jun]. Start at the Source: Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Protection. San Francisco, CA: Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. Available from: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/pdfs/0203/c3_related_info/startatthesource/Start_At_The_Source_Full.pdf TreeHugger. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Seattle RainCatcher Pilot Program. Available from: http://www.treehugger. com/files/2005/03/seattle_raincat_1.php
17
Rain Gardens
Summary
Rain gardens are stormwater facilities integrated into depressed landscape areas. They are designed to capture and inltrate stormwater runoff. Rain gardens include water-tolerant plants in permeable soils with high organic contents that absorb stormwater and transpire it back into the atmosphere. Rain gardens slow and detain the ow of stormwater thereby decreasing peak ow volumes. They also lter stormwater before it either recharges into groundwater reserves or is returned to the combined sewer system. The are also easily customizable and provide both habitat and aesthetic benets. Rain gardens are a subset of bioretention planters except that they do not typically include engineered soils or an under-drain connection. Their form is regionally variable - in the south and mid-west they are often less formal, whereas in the west they often take a more formal shape (see photos to right) Therefore, rain gardens are more appropriate for residential landscaping or low impervious areas with well draining soils. Rain gardens are often small and can be implemented by private landowners in small yards. They function like larger scaled bioretention projects with many of the same benets and limitations. Stormwater from downspouts can be directed through an energy dissipater to rain gardens to store and treat water before it makes it to the sewer system or a receiving water body.
18
Rain Gardens
Benefits
PHOTO FROM www.ci.maplewood.mn.us
Limitations
Depth to bedrock must be over 10 feet for
inltration based systems Limited to slopes less than 5 percent, slopes greater than 5 percent require check dams Seasonal uctuation in water quality benets based on the plants ability to lter pollutants Vegetation requires maintenance and can look overgrown or weedy, seasonally it may appear dead Site conditions must be conducive to partial or full inltration and the growing of vegetation or an underdrain is needed 10 foot minimum separation from groundwater is required to allow for inltration, unless the Regional Water Quality Control Board approves otherwise Non-underdrained systems must have minimum soil inltration rates, no contaminated soils, no risk of land slippage if soils are heavily saturated, and a sufcient distance from existing foundations, roads, subsurface infrastructure
peak ows Improves water quality Improves air quality Improves urban hydrology and facilitates groundwater recharge Low installation costs Low maintenance requirements Low space requirements Creates habitat and increases biodiversity in the city Provides aesthetic amenity Easily customizable
Residential rain garden in Maplewood, MN Formal rain garden in Portland, OR
19
Rain Gardens
Design Details
Rain gardens should be placed at least 10 feet from building foundations and typically collect stormwater from roofs, small paved surfaces, or landscaped surfaces. The shallow depression lls with a few inches of water during a rain event. Either the soils must be suitable to inltrate the collected water or a more intensive bioretention planter is recommended. Dense vegetation assists with the uptake of pollutants and the absorption of the stormwater. Rain gardens require a minimum of a 5 percent slope and well-drained soils to function correctly. Rain gardens are more appropriate for drainage areas less than 1 acre in size. Typical rain garden
Water from 1 acre or less of roof, paved or landscaped surfaces
Min. 4 width Dense vegetation tolerant of wet and dry conditions
2-6 Ponding depth Berm
Min. 10 from downspout Optional 12 sand bed
2-3 Mulch
Native soils suitable for infiltration

Rain gardens are a relatively low cost and low maintenance stormwater management solution. A resident can build and install their own rain garden in their front or back yard for very little money. The more elaborate the garden, the more expensive installation becomes. The cost averages $8 per square foot and are typically about 600 square feet, making the total cost approximately $5,000. Some level of annual maintenance is required and is most intensive soon after construction until the garden matures. In the early spring and fall the garden needs to be weeded and the mulch refreshed bi-annually to encourage healthy vegetation and pollutant uptake. Mulch and compost improve the soils ability to capture water. In the rst season irrigation may be necessary to establish the plants.
20
Rain Gardens
Rain garden at Glencoe Elementary School

Glencoe Elementary School in SE Portland installed a rain garden in their school grounds in 2003 to prevent neighborhood-wide combined sewer overflow problems by reducing runoff volumes while providing aesthetic and educational amenities to the schoolyard. The completed rain garden is a 2,000 square foot infiltration and detention system that manages runoff from 35,000 square feet of impermeable surfaces with a total cost of $98,000.
References
City of Portland. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Design Report: Rain Garden at Glencoe Elementary School. Portland, OR: Bureau of Environmental Services. Available from: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image. cfm?id=147510 Rain Garden Network. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Local, On-Site Solutions for your Local Stormwater Issues. Available from: http://www.raingardennetwork.com/ Rain Gardens of West Michigan. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Raingardens: Qualities and Benefits. Available from: www.Raingardens.org City of Maplewood. 2007 [cited 2007 Aug]. Rain Water Gardens. Available from: http://www.ci.maplewood. mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BF2C03470-D6B5-4572-98F0-F79819643C2A%7D
21
Bioretention Planters
Summary
Bioretention is the use of plants, engineered soils, and a rock subbase to slow, store, and remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Bioretention planters improve stormwater quality, reduce overall volumes, and delay and reduce stormwater runoff peak ows. Bioretention planters can vary in size from small, vegetated swales to multi-acre parks; however, there are limits to the size of the drainage area that can be handled. System designs can be adapted to a variety of physical conditions including parking lots, roadway median strips and right-of-ways, parks, residential yards, and other landscaped areas and can also be included in the retrots of existing sites.
Bioretention in Vancouver, BC
Portlands Green Streets Program has successfully implemented many bioretention projects since it began in 2003 including bioretention curb-side planters constructed in the parking zone on either side of a street, just up stream form the storm drain inlets. One such project, NE Siskiyou Street, captures runoff from approximately 9,300 square feet of paved surfaces. Total project cost (excluding street and sidewalk repairs) was $17,000, or $1.83 per square foot of impervious area managed. Mississippi Commons, a mixed-use development project incorporates an internal Rain Drain system, which collects stormwater from the 20,000 square foot roof area, which was previously connected to the combined sewer, and directs it to a courtyard planter. The planter removes an average of 500,000 gallons of stormwater annually from the combined sewer system and was designed as an architectural feature for the internal courtyard of the development. New Columbia, an 82 acre redevelopment area, is Portlands largest Green Streets site, with 101 vegetated pocket swales for biofiltration, 31 flow-through planter boxes and 40 infiltration dry wells. It used 80 percent less underground stormwater piping than a comparable traditional development and 98 percent of the stormwater is retained on the site.
22
Bioretention planter in Portland, OR

The installation costs for a bioretention planter in San Francisco that would be capable of managing stormwater from a half acre of land is $65,000. Such a system would be approximately 2,200 square feet making the cost $39 per square foot. Operations and maintenance costs are estimated at $1,168 per acre per year based on data from the City of Seattle and adjusted for local factors. Like any landscape feature, bioretention planters must be pruned, mulched and watered until the pants are established. Semi-annual plant maintenance is recommended including the replacement of diseased or dead plants. Other regular maintenance requirements include trash removal and weeding. Because some of the sediment that enters bioretention planters have the propensity to crust on the soil surface, which limits the porosity of the soils, some raking of the mulch and soil surface may also necessary to maintain high inltration rates.
Benefits
peak ows Improves water quality Improves air quality Improves urban hydrology and facilitates groundwater recharge Lowers the temperature of stormwater runoff, which maintains cool stream temperatures for sh and other aquatic life Reduces the heat island effect Creates habitat and increases biodiversity in the city Provides aesthetic amenity
Limitations
Depth to bedrock must be more than 10
feet for inltration based systems Limited to slopes less than 5 percent Seasonal uctuation in water quality benets based on the plants ability to lter pollutants Vegetation requires maintenance and can look overgrown or weedy, seasonally it may appear dead Site conditions must be conducive to partial or full inltration and the growing of vegetation 10 foot minimum separation from groundwater is required to allow for inltration, unless the Regional Water Quality Control Board approves otherwise Must have minimum soil inltration rates, no contaminated soils, no risk of land slippage if soils are heavily saturated, and a sufcient distance from existing foundations, roads, subsurface infrastructure, drinking water wells, septic tanks, drain elds, or other elements.
Bioretention planter in Vancouver, BC
23
Design Details
During a storm event, runoff may temporarily pond in a bioretention depression as it percolates through the mulch layer and engineered soil mix. Plant material provides water quality benets as the roots and soils uptake some pollutants from stormwater. Bioretention areas can either inltrate a portion of or all of the stormwater runoff depending on site and soil conditions. A perforated underdrain pipe is recommended, in areas with poorly drained native soils. In areas where inltration is facilitated by well-drained soils, bioretention planters can be designed without the underdrain, much like rain gardens, to inltrate the stormwater. The primary considerations in siting a bioretention planter are space availability, suitability of the soils for inltration, rates, depth to groundwater, depth to bedrock, and slope. Bioretention planters should be designed with a maximum of 6 inches of ponding on the top surface, which includes mulch and wet-tolerant vegetation. A minimum of 4 feet of engineered soils and a gravel drainage layer beneath the vegetation allow for proper inltration. To ensure proper functioning, the maximum drainage area for a single bioretention cell is 5 acres with a minimum of 5 feet of head to ensure drainage. Installing an energy dissipater (i.e. grass channel, rip rap, etc.) to slow the water velocity at the entrance to the bioretention area will minimize the potential for erosion or vegetation damage.
Typical bioretention planter
Dense vegetation tolerant of wet and dry conditions
Curb cut
Max. 6 ponding depth 1% Min. Slope 2-3 Mulch Building
Stone used to dissipate energy Min. 4 engineered soils
Gravel curtain drain protects building foundation Optional sand filter layer Perforated pipe in gravel jacket
Infiltration where feasible
24
Dense vegetation tolerant of wet and dry conditions
Parking egress zone: concrete pavers over sand
Max. 6 ponding depth
Curb cut Min. 4 engineered soils Infiltration where feasible
2-3 Mulch Optional sand filter layer Perforated pipe in gravel jacket Street-side bioretention planter based on Portlands Green Streets

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) Natural Drainage Program was established in 1999. Street Edge Alternatives (SEA Streets) was SPUs pilot natural drainage systems project. A residential block was retrofitted with a narrower, meandering street with flat curbs, lined with vegetated swales and amended soils on both sides. The swales detain stormwater from the street rightof-way and properties along the east side of the street, totaling 2.3 acres. The project cost was $850,000, making the cost per square foot of drainage area managed, not including the replacement of sidewalks or streets, between $3 and $5. The second project, the High Point Redevelopment Project, used swales, permeable pavement, downspout disconnection, rain gardens, tree preservation, and bioretention to manage runoff from 129 acres of mixed income housing. Construction began in 2003 and will be complete in 2009.
References
Bioretention.com. 2007 [cited 2007 May]. Components. Design Details. Maintenance. Retrieved at www.bioretention.com City of Portland. 2007 [cited 2007 May]. Sustainable Stormwater Management Green Solutions: Stormwater Swales and Planters. Portland, OR: Bureau of Environmental Services. Available from: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=123781 City and County of San Francisco. 2006. Low Impact Development Literature Review. Prepared by Carollo Engineers [Unpublished Memo]. City of Seattle. 2007 [cited 2007 May]. High Point Development: Healthy Environment. Seattle, WA: Seattle Housing Authority. Available from: http://www.seattlehousing.org/Development/highpoint/healthyenviro.html Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2005 [cited 2007 Jul]. Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Action Team and Washington State University Pierce County Extension. Publication No. PSAT 05-03. Available from: www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_tech_manual05/LID_manual2005.pdf
25
Permeable Paving
Summary
Permeable pavement refers to any porous, load-bearing surface that allows for temporary rainwater storage prior to inltration or drainage to a controlled outlet. The stormwater is stored in the underlying aggregate layer until it inltrates into the soil below or is routed to the conventional conveyance system. Research and monitoring projects have shown that permeable pavement is effective at reducing runoff volumes, delaying peak ows, and improving water quality. Several types of paving surfaces are available to match site conditions, intended use, and aesthetic preferences. Permeable pavement systems are most appropriate in areas with low-speed travel and lightto medium-duty loads, such as parking lots, low-trafc streets, streetside parking areas, driveways, bike paths, patios, and sidewalks. Inltration rates of permeable surfaces decline over time to varying degrees depending on design and installation, sediment loads, and consistency of maintenance.
PHOTOS BY ROSEY JENCKS
Top: Permeable pavers a county lane in Vancouver, BC Bottom: Permeable pavers in Germany
26
Permeable Paving
Benefits
peak ows Improves water quality by reducing ne grain sediments, nutrients, organic matter, and trace metals Reduces the heat island effect Improves urban hydrology and facilitates groundwater recharge Provides noise reduction
Limitations
Limited to paved areas with slow and low
trafc volumes Require periodic maintenance to maintain efciency Easily clogged by sediment if not correctly installed and maintained More expensive than traditional paving surfaces (although these costs can be offset by not needing to install a curb and gutter drainage system) Depth to bedrock must be greater than 10 feet for inltration based systems Difcult to use where soil is compacted: inltration rates must be at least 0.5 inches per hour


The estimated installation costs of permeable paving average $10 per square foot. One of the biggest maintenance concerns is sediment clogging the pores in the paving. For this reason, sediment should be diverted from the surface and the surface needs to be cleaned regularly to ensure proper porosity. Once a year, the paving needs to be inspected and tested to determine if it is clogged, which can be done in 5 minutes with a stopwatch and a sprinkler. Also, broken or damaged pavers need to be removed and replaced. Maintenance consisting of vacuum sweeping and pressure washing (as long as water supply is not limited) has an estimated cost, based on local labor costs, of $6,985 per acre per year.
Load-bearing turf block in Vancouver, BC
Porous asphalt in Portland, OR

The Seattle High Point Project showcases the first porous pavement street in Washington and serves as a testing ground for its use elsewhere. Porous concrete pavement was used on two city street sections, half of the public sidewalks, and for parking and access on many of the private properties. Porous pavement sidewalks and gravel-paved driveways are employed at key sites to help reduce paved or impervious surfaces and infiltrate stormwater.
27
Permeable Paving
Design Details
Permeable paving consists of a series of layered elements that allows stormwater to penetrate through the paved surface, be stored, and then either inltrate into the soils or be slowed and conducted to the sewer system. The top layer is the permeable paving material, below which is a gravel or sand bedding that lters large particulates. If a storm event exceeds the capacity of the storage layer, a perforated overow pipe directs excess water to the storm sewer. Common permeable paving systems include the following: Permeable hot-mix asphalt: Similar to standard hot-mix asphalt but with reduced aggregate nes Open-graded concrete: Similar to standard pavement, but without the ne aggregate (sand and ner) and with
special admixtures incorporated (optional) Concrete or plastic block pavers: Either cast-in-place or pre-cast blocks have small joints or openings that can be lled with soil and grass or gravel Plastic grid systems: Grid of plastic rings that interlock and are covered with soil and grass or gravel
Permeable pavements are best suited for runoff from impervious areas. If non-paved areas will drain to pervious pavements, it is important to provide a ltering mechanism to prevent soil from clogging the pervious pavement. Soil inltration rates must also be at least 0.5 inches per hour to function properly. Site conditions (including soil type, depth to bedrock, slope, and adjacent land uses) should be assessed to determine whether inltration is appropriate, and to ensure that excessive sediment and pollutants are not directed onto the permeable surfaces.
Permeable pavers Pavers with open spaces filled with gravel or sand Filter layer: fine gravel or sand Storage layer: coarse gravel Perforated pipe flows to sewer Optional geotextile fabric Subgrade Infiltration where feasible
28
Permeable Paving

In 2004, the Bureau of Environmental Services paved three blocks of streets in the Westmoreland neighborhood with permeable pavement that allows rainwater to infiltrate. They paved about 1,000 feet of street surface with interlocking concrete blocks. One block of SE Knapp Street was paved curb-to-curb with permeable blocks. The other streets SE Rex Street and SE 21st Avenue were paved with a center strip of standard asphalt and permeable pavement in both curb lanes. A fourth block was paved curb-to-curb with standard asphalt. New methods and equipment like vacuum sweepers will be used to clean the streets and keep them free of weeds and debris. The construction cost was $412,000. In summer 2005, the City of Portland completed paving four blocks of North Gay Avenue. This is a pilot project to learn how well different pavement materials handle stormwater and hold up as a street surface. For this reason, the city installed four different pavement combinations on Gay including porous concrete curb-to-curb; porous concrete in both curb lanes, standard concrete in the middle travel lanes; porous asphalt curb-to-curb; and porous asphalt in the curb lanes only. The results of this test are not yet available.
Permeable pavement
Porous asphalt Filter layer: fine gravel or sand Storage layer: coarse gravel Perforated pipe flows to sewer Optional geotextile fabric Subgrade Infiltration where feasible
References
Los Angeles County. 2002 [cited 2007 Jun]. Development Planning For Stormwater Management: A Manual For The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Los Angeles, CA: Department of Public Works. Available from: http://ladpw.org/wmd/NPDES/SUSMP_MANUAL.pdf New York City. 2005 [cited 2007 Jun]. High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines: Best Practice for the Public Right-of-Way. New York, NY: Department of Design and Construction. Available from: http://www.designtrust. org/pubs/05_HPIG.pdf Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2005 [cited 2007 Jul]. Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Action Team and Washington State University Pierce County Extension. Publication No. PSAT 05-03. Available from: www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_tech_manual05/LID_manual2005.pdf Tom Richmond and Associates. 1999 [cited 2007 Jun]. Start at the Source: Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Protection San Francisco, CA: Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. Available from: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/pdfs/0203/c3_related_info/startatthesource/Start_At_The_Source_Full.pdf
29
Detention Basins
Summary
Detention basins are temporary holding areas for stormwater that store peak ows and slowly release them, lessening the demand on treatment facilities during storm events and preventing ooding. Generally, detention basins are designed to ll and empty within 24 to 48 hours of a storm event and therefore could reduce peak ows and combined sewer overows. If designed with vegetation, basins can also create habitat and clean the air whereas underground basins do not. Surface detention basins require relatively at slopes. Four types of detention basins are detailed below. 1. Traditional dry detention basins simply store water and gradually release it into the system. Dry detention basins do not provide water quality benets, as they only detain stormwater for a short period of time. Maintenance requirements are limited to periodic removal of sediment and maintenance of vegetation. Dry detention basins are good solutions for areas with poorly draining soils, high liquefaction rates during earthquakes, or a high groundwater table, which limit inltration.
2. Extended dry detention basins are designed to hold the rst ush of stormwater for a minimum of 24 hours. Extended dry detention basins have a greater water quality benet than traditional detention basins because the extended hold time allows the sediment particles to settle to the bottom of the pond. Collected sediments must be periodically removed from the basin to avoid re-suspension. 3. Underground detention basins are well suited to dense urban
Stormwater wet pond in Berlin, Germany
(cont.)
30
Detention Basins
locations where land costs make surface options unfeasible. Underground detention basins work best if partnered with an upstream BMP that provides water quality benets, like bioretention planters, if water is not returned to the combined sewer overow. Underground detention basins need to be on a slight slope to facilitate drainage but should not be placed on steep slopes because of the threat of erosion. They can be placed under a roadway, parking lot, or open space and are easy to incorporate into other right-of-way retrots. 4. Multi-purpose detention basins are detention basins that have been paired with additional uses such as large play areas, dog parks, athletic elds or other public spaces. Generally detention basins are only lled with water during storm events and can act as open spaces during dry weather.
PHOTO BY KIMBERLY SHORTER
Detention basin in Seattle, WA
Big Creek multi-purpose detention basin in Roswell, GA
Benefits
peak ows
Limitations
Limited pollution removal potential Inadequate drainage can result in mosquito breeding Low aesthetic value (unless designed for multi-purpose) Site limited by depth to bedrock and slope Must have no risk of land slippage if soils are heavily saturated, and a sufcient distance from existing foundations, roads, and subsurface infrastructure
Improves water quality by removing some

particulate matter, sediment and buoyant materials (extended dry detention only) Reduces ooding Low maintenance costs Low space requirements (underground only) Good for sites where inltration is not an option May create habitat and increases biodiversity in the city (multi-purpose detention only) May provide open space and aesthetic amenity (multi-purpose detention only)
31
Detention Basins
Design Details
Surface detention basins generally consist of a depressed area of land, or an area that is surrounded by built up berms, where stormwater is directed and stored during storm events. There is a spillway to allow ows that exceed the designed capacity of the system to reenter the sewer system. Detentions basins should not be constructed within 25 feet of existing structures and new structures cannot be built on top of them. Detention basin sizing is important because if runoff exceeds the holding capacity, excess water is discharged back into the normal conveyance system. Underground detention lls up during rain events and stores the water until it can drain back into the combined system. Traditional dry detention basin Min. 25 from structures
Overflow spillway Berm Designed storm elevation
Erosion Protection Outflow Sediment Erosion protection Rip-rap, fabric sock, or trash rack filter sediment form outflow Low-flow orifice Max. 4:1 slope
Extended Dry Detention Basin Underground detention basin Maintenance hatch
Parking lot
Overflow drains to sewer Designed storm elevation Outflow Sediment
Trash racks
32
Detention Basins

Typical construction, design and permitting costs for an above ground, extended detention basin are estimated at $41,000 for a one-tenth of an acre basin, which can manage stormwater from 2 acres of land. Detention basins require periodic maintenance and monitoring of conditions to make sure that sediment accumulation is not a problem. Underground detention basins must have a maintenance access hatch that allows system monitoring. Periodically, sediment may need to be removed to maintain the continued efciency of the system.
Case Study: Roswell, GA
Detention basin in Seattle, WA
The Big Creek Park Demonstration Project includes a multi-purpose detention area to store and treat runoff from a suburban neighborhood to protect a downstream wetland. The multi-purpose pond is used for soccer and recreation during dry periods and fills with water during rain events. Under the sod surface, there is a layer of engineered soil and mixed rock to improve drainage. The feature includes an outlet structure that ensures drainage within 24 hours to prevent damage to the sod. The total storage volume provided in the 1.7 acre multi-purpose detention pond is 4.76 acre-feet of stormwater.
Case Study: Kent, WA

Mill Creek Canyon Stormwater Detention Dam is a multi-purpose detention basin located in Kent, a suburb of Seattle. Built in 1982, this 2.5 acre portion of a larger park can store up to 18 acre-feet of stormwater from 2.2 square miles of pervious and impervious urban surfaces uphill of the site. A land artist, Herbert Bayer, participated in the design of the park and sculptural earthworks were used to capture the water in spirals and between mounds that park visitors can traverse using paths and bridges. The project was developed in collaboration between the King County Arts Council and the Kent Parks Department
References
California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003 [cited 2007 Jun]. Extended Detention Basin. In Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook. Available from: http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/TC-22.pdf City of Seattle. 2000 [cited 2007 Jun]. Flow Controls Technical Requirements Manual. Seattle, WA: Department of Planning and Development. Available from: http://www.seattle.gov/dclu/codes/Dr/DR2000-26.pdf Frost-Kumpf, HA. 1995 [cited 2007 Jun]. Reclamation Art: Restoring and Commemorating Blighted Landscapes. Available from: http://slaggarden.cfa.cmu.edu/weblinks/frost/FrostTop.html Los Angeles County. 2002 [cited 2007 Jun]. Development Planning For Stormwater Management: A Manual For The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Los Angeles, CA: Department of Public Works. Available from: http://ladpw.org/wmd/NPDES/SUSMP_MANUAL.pdf New York City. 2005 [cited 2007 Jun]. High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines: Best Practice for the Public Right-of-Way. New York, NY: Department of Design and Construction. Available from: http://www.designtrust. org/pubs/05_HPIG.pdf
33
The Urban Forest

Summary
Urban forests made up of publicly and privately maintained street and park trees offer a myriad of benets to the urban environment, including stormwater mitigation. Trees intercept rainfall before it reaches the ground and uptake the water that does reach the ground, thereby reducing runoff volume and peak ows. Also, their roots and organic leaf litter help to increase soil permeability. In addition to stormwater benets, trees remove particulates, cool the air and beautify the city. In 2003, the City of San Francisco Street Tree Resource Analysis completed by the Center for Urban Forest Research, reported that approximately 56 percent of all street-tree planting sites (sidewalk pavement cuts designated for street tree planting) in the city are unplanted, ranging from 28 percent in afuent districts to 74 percent in under served districts (e.g., Bayview-Hunters Point). These unplanted areas present an opportunity not only for signicant stormwater reductions, but also for addressing environmental justice issues. The analysis found that San Franciscos street trees reduce stormwater runoff by an estimated 13,270,050 cubic feet (99 million gallons) annually, for a total value to the city of $467,000 per year. On average, street trees in San Francisco intercept 1,006 gallons per tree annually. Certain tree species were better at reducing stormwater runoff than others. Those demonstrating the highest stormwater reduction benets were blackwood acacia, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress, and Chinese elm.
34
The Urban Forest
Benefits
peak ows Improves water quality Improves air quality Provides shade and therefore may lower energy costs for buildings Decreases soil erosion in parks and open spaces Reduces the heat island effect Creates habitat and increases biodiversity in the city Provides aesthetic amenity Can contribute to carbon sequestration
Limitations
Requires adequate space for planting Moderate installation and maintenance
costs In some San Francisco neighborhoods, cultural preferences have lead to disagreement about aesthetic value of street trees Potential conicts with overhead wires Potential to damage underground infrastructure with roots Non-ideal growing conditions can cause stunting, disease or premature death
Trees lining a grassy swale in Germany
Case Study: Los Angeles, CA

Million Trees LA is a plan to plant 1 million trees in Los Angeles over the next several years. In the first year of the program, approximately 44,378 trees have been planted. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Trees for a Green LA program, in conjunction with Million Trees LA, offers free shade trees to residential electric customers who attend an online or neighborhood workshop on how to plant and care for their tree. Non-residential (Home Owners Associations or apartment owners) can receive free shade trees by completing the workshop or certifying that a professional landscape contractor will plant and maintain the trees.
Trees lining a street and bioretention planter in Portland, OR
35
The Urban Forest
Design Details
A typical street tree planted in an urban location helps manage stormwater in a number of ways. First, water is stored in the canopy of the tree and is later evaporated into the atmosphere. Second, the tree pit provides a location in the paved sidewalk for water to infiltrate or be stored in the soil for later use by the tree or other vegetation. The leaf litter and other organic material as well as the roots contribute to the soils ability to hold and infiltrate water. Trees also transpire water from the soil into the atmosphere during their process of photosynthesis. Tree selection is important to maximize the benefits of each tree as a part of the urban forest. Tree pits can be integrated into a bioretention planter that provides additional stormwater management benefits. The City of Portland has successfully implemented bioretention planters in conjunction with street trees. Street trees in San Francisco Rain is intercepted by the canopy and evaporates
Street trees on Grove Street in San Francisco
Water is transpired back to the atmosphere
Tree grate
Concrete sidewalk
Roots and organic material absorb water
Tree pit
Compacted soil
Perforated pipe drains to sewer
36
The Urban Forest

Maintenance of street trees in San Francisco is carried out by a combination of the city, private residents, and non-prot organizations such as Friends of the Urban Forest. The cost for the city to maintain a street tree is estimated to be $150 per tree per year. The rst three years of the trees life are generally more expensive than the years that follow because trees require irrigation until established.
The cost to install trees in San Francisco varies depending on the species but averages $750 to $1,000 for a 24 inch box tree, which is the most common size of tree planted in San Francisco. In areas where risk of damage to the young trees is high, such as Market Street, 36 inch box trees are installed instead with costs closer to $1,450 per tree.
Trees near a grassy swale in Berlin, Germany
C a s e S t u d y : Wa s h i n g t o n , D C
Since 1999, the Urban Forestry Administration (UFA) has planted 14,500 trees (or approximately 2,400 trees per year). The UFA has developed relationships with local public/private partner organizations such as Green Spaces for DC, the Casey Trees Endowment Fund, Community Resources, and others, who are currently involved in tree-related work within DCs neighborhoods. According to the Mayors office, over the last three years the tree budget of the UFA has been boosted to $7 million per year. The UFA is removing dead trees and old stumps, while every year trimming 15,000 to 17,000 trees and planting 4,000 new trees.
References
City and County of San Francisco. 2006. Low Impact Development Literature Review. Prepared by Carollo Engineers [Unpublished Memo]. City and County of San Francisco. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. The Benefits of an Urban Forest. San Francisco, CA: SF Environment. Available from: http://www.sfenvironment.com/aboutus/openspaces/urbanforest/benefits.htm Friends of the Urban Forest. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Available from: http://www.fuf.net/ Maco SE, McPheson EG, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Xiao Q. 2003 [cited 2007 Jun]. City of San Francisco, California: Street Tree Resource Analysis. Davis, CA: Center for Urban Forest Research USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. Available from: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/products/cufr427_SFSTAFinal.pdf Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. The Benefits of Urban Trees. Available from: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/publications/urban.html Million Trees LA. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Available from: http://www.milliontreesla.org/ South Carolina Forestry Commission. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. The Benefits of Urban Trees. Available from: http:// www.state.sc.us/forest/urbben.htm
37
Stream Daylighting
Summary
Stream daylighting refers to projects that uncover and restore streams, and rivers that were previously buried in underground pipes and culverts, covered by decks, or otherwise removed from view. Stream diversion, more akin to sewer separation than to stream restoration, involves re-routing an underground stream to discharge directly into another water body rather than being added to the load on the combined sewer system. The volume of inow that can be diverted from the sewer system will be specic to the local hydrology and therefore cannot be generalized. Several projects, however, demonstrate that stream diversion can be effective at reducing wetweather ows to combined sewers. The City of San Francisco has several historic creek channels that run clean water through culverts to treatment plants and then to the bay and ocean. Diverting these historical streams to a separate system can decrease demand on the treatments facilities. Daylighting creeks also has the additional benets of partially repairing the natural hydrologic cycle, increasing capacity in drainages with undersized pipes, slowing the rate of peak ows, providing habitat, creating recreational facilities, and providing a site for ongoing environmental awareness and education.
Small, open runnel in Kolding, Denmark

The City of Portland is currently installing new pipelines to divert Tanner Creek directly into the Willamette River instead of into the combined sewer system. The finished project is expected to remove approximately 165 million gallons of stormwater annually from the combined sewer system.
38
Stream Daylighting
Benefits
peak ows Improves water quality Reduces ooding Improves urban hydrology and facilitates groundwater recharge Replaces deteriorating culverts with an open drainage system that can be more easily monitored and repaired Costs less, or marginally more, than replacing an existing culvert Creates habitat and increases biodiversity in the city Provides recreational amenities Provides educational opportunities
Limitations

High installation costs May have high maintenance costs May have high land requirements Poor design can lead to soil erosion Poor design can aggravate or create ooding problems Some benets are lost if only fragmented segments are daylit
Case Study: Zurich

The City of Zurich, Switzerland, daylit and diverted over 14 miles of streams and brooks to reduce flows into the combined sewer system and wastewater treatment facilities. As a result, nearly 4.5 million gallons per day has been diverted from the citys two wastewater treatment plants.
Diverted creek in Zurich, Switzerland

The average estimated cost of a stream daylighting project is $500,000 per 5,000 square feet or $100 per square foot. However, the width of the restoration can also be a major factor in the nal cost of the project. Maintenance activities include general weeding and monitoring for damage such as erosion of the banks as well as continuously monitoring water quality, to ensure the habitat health. Until vegetation is established, maintenance of the stream and vegetation is critical. As with all open water, ponding that would support mosquito habitat needs to be minimized, and safety must be considered where public access to the stream is desired.
Diverted creek in Zurich, Switzerland
39
Stream Daylighting
Design Details
Currently in San Francisco, creeks run in the sewer pipe under the surface of the city. Diversion creates a separate conveyance system for the creek, bypassing the sewer treatment plants and instead heading to natural bodies of water like the bay or the ocean. As is done in Zurich, Switzerland, diverted runoff is conveyed on the surface in small channels and therefore provide an aesthetic amenity. Flooding is prevented through upstream ow controls. Daylighting is well suited for creeks that lay within an existing open space because of the land requirements may otherwise be prohibitive. The daylit creek can increase aesthetic and recreational enjoyment to the visitors of the open space.
Culverted creek Currently streams are simply combined with the sewer mains
Diverted creek Creek water runs along the surface towards the Bay or Ocean and the total volume of wastewater flow is decreased - this can be implemented on all or part of the storm flow
100 year flood elevation
Bankful bench
40
Stream Daylighting
Daylit creek Where creeks run through parks or large open spaces, the riparian habitat can be restored - this can be implemented on all or part of the storm flow
Bankful bench
100 year flood elevation
Case Study: Berkeley, C A

Strawberry Creek Park was built in 1982 in place of a defunct railroad yard. During the planning and construction of the park, the designers identified the culverted Strawberry Creek under the site and recognized the opportunity to daylight the creek. Strawberry Creek is now restored and planted with California native plants. The creek is just one part of a larger park that provides diverse recreational facilities for the neighborhood. Through the help of volunteers and the use of recycled materials, the project was completed within a $650,000 budget.

The Ravenna Creek Daylighting Project included work in two existing parks to bring 650 linear feet of the historic creek out of a culvert and onto the surface, providing habitat, drainage, and aesthetic improvements. Upon leaving the parks, the creek water is diverted underground along its natural drainage path to a slough that drains to the Puget Sound instead of into the sewer system. The total cost of the project was $1,885,000 including planning and construction, community participation, and interpretive artwork. It was carried out through collaboration between Seattle Park and Recreation and the Department of Natural Resources.
References
City of Berkeley. 2006 [cited 2007 Jun]. Strawberry Creek Park. Berkeley, CA: Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront. Available from: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/parks/parkspages/StrawberryCreek.html City and County of San Francisco. 2006. Low Impact Development Literature Review. Prepared by Carollo Engineers [Unpublished Memo]. City of Seattle. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Ravenna Creek Daylighting within Ravenna Park Pro Parks Project Information. Seattle, WA: Department of Parks and Recreation. Available from: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/proparks/ projects/RavennaCreekatRavenna.htm City of Portland. 2005. Combined Sewer Overflow Project: January 2005. Portland, OR: Bureau of Environmental Services. City of Zurich. 2006 [cited 2007 Apr]. Clean Water in Our City. Available from: http://www3.stzh.ch/internet/erz/ home/medien/broschueren.html Sunset Magazine. 1991 [cited 2007 Jun]. How to Bring a Stream Back to Life: Berkeley and San Diego Show How it is Done, In Sunset Magazine, April 1991. Available from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1216/is_n4_v186/ ai_10478671 Pinkham, R. 2000 [cited 2007 Jun]. Daylighting: A New Life for Buried Streams. Snowmass, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Institute. Available from: http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Water/W00-32_Daylighting.pdf
41
C o n s t r u c t e d We t l a n d s
Summary
Stormwater constructed wetlands are man-made wetlands designed to collect and purify stormwater through microbial breakdown, plant uptake, ltration, settling and adsorption. Water is stored in shallow pools that are designed to support wetland plants. Constructed wetlands have some of the same ecological functions as natural wetlands and are benecial for ood control and water quality improvements. Important site conditions include inltration rates, size of drainage area, depth to bedrock, available area, soil characteristics, and depth to groundwater. They can be used in conjunction with other BMPs. There are two main types of constructed wetlands: surface and subsurface. Surface wetlands are characterized by emergent vegetation and open water. The water and plants create a habitat for aquatic life along with water quality benets. Subsurface wetlands are less common than surface wetlands in the United States. Water in these systems ows below the ground surface through a planted substrate, such as gravel, sand, or rock. Subsurface wetlands generally require less land area and take less time to cleanse runoff water.
Tanner Springs Park constructed wetlands in Portland, OR
42
Constructed Wetlands
Benefits
peak ows
Limitations
High installation costs Requires continuous base ow or use of native wetland plants adapted to seasonal dry periods Requires large land area which is more difcult in densely populated areas Limited to slopes less than 8 percent Vegetation may require maintenance May act as a heat sink that discharges warmer water to downstream water bodies 10 foot minimum separation from groundwater is required to allow for inltration, unless the Regional Water Quality Control Board approves otherwise Must be a minimum of 10 feet from adjacent building foundations
Improves water quality Improves air quality Improves urban hydrology and facilitates
groundwater recharge
Can function as a regional facility treating

large volumes of water Low maintenance costs Creates habitat and increases biodiversity in the city May provide open space, recreation, and aesthetic amenity
Constructed wetlands in Tanner Springs Park in Portland, OR

Installation costs for constructed wetlands average $57,000 for each acre of land managed, or $13 per square foot of the completed system. Periodic sediment removal is sometimes necessary. The forebay area should be inspected biennially and cleared as needed to avoid sediment build-up. System should be carefully observed (twice a year for the rst three years) over time to make sure that the plants are growing properly and not dominated by invasive species. The constructed wetland should also be monitored for vector species.
43
Design Details
For both surface and subsurface systems, stormwater ows into the system through an inlet pipe and enters a forebay that allows settling of the large sediment. The forebay must be dredged and cleaned on a regular basis to avoid clogging of the system. To mimic a natural wetland, the bottom of a constructed wetland should have irregular heights to create pockets of both deep and shallow water. As water moves through the system, the plant roots and the other microorganisms provide water quality treatment. Water leaves the system after being retained for an adequate period of time for the desired pollutants to be removed. Surface wetlands move water horizontally through the system and water is exposed to the surface. Subsurface wetlands move water either horizontally or vertically and water is not exposed on the surface.
Surface wetland
Variety of wetland vegetation and aquatic life filter water Berm Inlet pipe Inflow
Maintenance opening Berm
Open water surface
Perforated pipe Irregular bottom surface
Outflow

Tanner Springs Park is a 0.92 acre wetland and bioretention park that is built on the site of a former natural wetland. The park was designed with a constructed surface wetland and biofilters. It collects the runoff from the adjacent sidewalks, treats it, and re-circulates it through permanent water features. None of the water from Tanner Springs Park reaches the Willamette River unless the flow of water exceeds the designed capacity of the system. Another project in Portland, the Stormwater Park at the Water Pollution Control Laboratory (constructed in 1997), collects water from the entire uphill neighborhood community including 40 acres of impermeable surfaces and 10 acres of permeable surfaces and uses constructed wetlands to adequately cleanse the water before it re-enters the Willamette River. Previously a 6 acre industrial site, 1.5 acres now consist of bio-swales, stormwater ponds and constructed wetlands.
44
Subsurface wetland Variety of wetland vegetation Permanent water level Mulch Berm Outflow Inlet pipe Medium and coarse gravel Perforated pipe Adjustable sand pipe controls water level Maintenance opening
Case Study: Hampton, GA

The Clayton County Water Authority created a constructed wetland as part of a mitigation requirement for a drinking water reservoir. The constructed wetland incorporates a boardwalk and environmental education center into the unique wetland located in the heart of an urban/suburban community. The 32 acre surface wetland provides water quality treatment of urban runoff thereby protecting the downstream drinking water reservoir. Habitat and water quality monitoring have shown the wetland to be an effective water quality BMP.
References
California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003 [cited 2007 Jun]. Extended Detention Basin. In Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook. Available from: http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/TC-22.pdf King County Wastewater Treatment Division. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Waterworks Gardens in Renton, WA. Available from: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/waterworks/ Liptan T, Murase RK. 2002 [cited 2007 Jun]. Watergardens as Stormwater Infrastructure in Portland, Oregon. In Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design. Editor France R. Lewis Publishers. Available from: http://www. portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=41627 Los Angeles County. 2002 [cited 2007 Jun]. Development Planning For Stormwater Management: A Manual For the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Los Angeles, CA: Department of Public Works. Available from: http://ladpw.org/wmd/NPDES/SUSMP_MANUAL.pdf State of Virginia. 2003 [cited 2007 Jun]. Chapter 3: Constructed Wetlands, Stormwater Wetlands. St. Paul, MN: Department of Conservation and Recreation, Metropolitan Council and Barr Engineering Co. Available from: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_&_water/documents/Chapter_3-09.pdf University of Washington. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Green Technology: Art and Water Infrastructure. Seattle, WA: Department of Landscape Architecture. Available from: http://online.caup.washington.edu/courses/larcwi01/ larc433/ArtWater/Case.htm Clayton County Water Authority. 2007 [cited 2007 Jun]. Melvin L. Newman Wetlands Center. Marrow, GA: Clayton County Water Authority. Available from: http://www.ccwa1.com/facilities/wetlands.center.aspx
45
46
47
U r b a n Wa t e r s h e d Urban W a te rsh ed rb an Wat er Watershed ate rs

48 U R B A N S T O R M WAT E R P L A N N I N G C H A R R E T T E S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 7

California San Francisco Low Impact Design Toolkit For Stormwater

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

California San Francisco Low Impact Design Toolkit For Stormwater

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

W h a t w i l l y o u d o w i t h S a n Fra n c i s c o s S t o r m wa t e r ?

Low Impact Design Toolkit

Pre-development conditions in San Francisco

Existing conditions in San Francisco

What is Low Impact Design?

Street tree planting

Bioretention planters Cisterns Stream daylighting

Intensive eco-roof in Zurich, Switzerland

PHOTO BY ROSEY JENCKS

Extensive eco-roof in Seattle, WA

Limited to roof slopes less than 20 degrees

Requires additional structural support to

Potentially increased seismic hazards with

Long payback time for installation costs

Extensive eco-roof and detention basin in Germany

Roof structure Overflow enters the gutter system

Cost and Maintenance

Case Study: Chicago, IL

Case Study: Portland, OR

Case Study: San Francisco, CA

PHOTO BY ROSEY JENCKS

May decrease water usage through lowered irrigation requirements

Added complexity for buildings with internally plumbed stormwater drains

Secondary system is required to deal with

Cost and Maintenance

Rainwater harvesting in Australia

PHOTO BY LESLIE WEBSTER

Houses can be plumbed internally or externally

All roof water goes to the sewer

Overflow goes to the sewer

Case Study: Portland, OR

Case Study: Los Angeles, CA

May decrease water usage if retained for

Low installation costs Low maintenance requirements (for above

Water reuse options limited to non-potable

Requires infrastructure (pumps or valves) to

Inadequate maintenance can result in mosquito breeding and/or algae production

Cost and Maintenance

Case Study: Cambria, CA

Cistern at Cambria Elementary School

Options for rainwater reuse with a small-scale cistern

Leaf screens on gutters prevent clogging

Maintenance opening has screen to prevent mosquito and litter accumulation

First flush diverter

Water can be reused for non-potable uses

Sewer backflow prevention device

Overflow enters the combined sewer

PHOTO BY LESLIE WEBSTER

Case Study: Seattle , WA

Residential rain garden in Maplewood, MN Formal rain garden in Portland, OR

PHOTO BY ROSEY JENCKS

Water from 1 acre or less of roof, paved or landscaped surfaces

Min. 4 width Dense vegetation tolerant of wet and dry conditions

2-6 Ponding depth Berm

Min. 10 from downspout Optional 12 sand bed

Native soils suitable for infiltration

Cost and Maintenance

Rain garden at Glencoe Elementary School

PHOTO BY ROSEY JENCKS

Case Study: Portland, OR

Case Study: Portland, OR

Bioretention planter in Portland, OR

Cost and Maintenance