Document78

PILOT PROJECT REPORT

VERSION 1.0.1

NORTHSHORE DRIVE

ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF BELLINGHAM

Prepared by

Craig Weiland

8/21/2010

CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Description ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Case Study Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Credit Discussion by Category ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Project Requirements (PR) ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Environment & Water (EW) ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Access & Equity (AE) ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Construction Activities (CA) ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Materials & Resources (MR) .................................................................................................................................... 9

Pavement Technologies (PT) .................................................................................................................................. 10

Potential Custom Credits ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................... 12

References ................................................................................................................................................................... 12

FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Project Site Map ............................................................................................................................................. 2

TABLES Table 1: Summary of Case Study Results ....................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Project Requirements Category ....................................................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Environment & Water Voluntary Credit Category ........................................................................................... 5

Table 4: Access & Equity Voluntary Credit Category ..................................................................................................... 7

Table 5: Construction Activities Voluntary Credit Category .......................................................................................... 8

Table 6: Materials & Resources Voluntary Credit Category .......................................................................................... 9

Table 7: Pavement Technologies Voluntary Credit Category ...................................................................................... 10

Table 8: Potential Custom Credits ............................................................................................................................... 11

APPENDICES Appendix A: About the Greenroads Rating System

Appendix B: Case Study Method

Appendix C: Greenroads Progress Scorecard

Appendix D: Project Calculations

Greenroads Case Study Northshore Drive Road and Drainage Improvements

8/21/2010 1

INTRODUCTION This report reflects the results of the Greenroads Case Study for the Northshore Drive Road and Drainage Improvements Project for the City of Bellingham. The results are presented using the Greenroads Progress Scorecard supplemented by a detailed credit‐by‐credit discussion. Recommendations are also included for applying the Greenroads sustainability performance metric to the project.

This Case Study included a review of the following project documents:

Project plans and specifications

Site Geotechnical report

Stormwater design report

Material tickets

Determination of non‐significance (DNS) SEPA finding

Porous pavements maintenance study

Community outreach presentation

Phone conversations with Freeman Anthony

Site visit on 5/22/2010. Reviewer met with Freeman Anthony, Project Engineer, City of Bellingham, and discussed project

The following section provides a brief project description. A detailed description of the Greenroads performance metric can be found in Appendix A, including a short list of Greenroads Project Requirements (PR) and Voluntary Credits (VC) for reference. A description of the Case Study methodology is provided in Appendix B, including an explanation of the terms used in the Greenroads Progress Scorecard (Appendix C). Supporting calculations for s earned are provided in Appendix D.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located in the Silver Beach area of the City of Bellingham. This is on the north shore of Lake Whatcom, the water source for a majority of Whatcom County. The project included all of Northshore Drive from the Dakin Street intersection to the Britton Road intersection. The design was loosely based on a recent project by the City of Olympia called RW Johnson Boulevard that used porous bike lanes and sidewalks along a traditional roadway. Northshore Drive received a hot mix asphalt overlay after surface grinding the existing roadway and making minor alignment modifications. Lane widths were reduced to 11 feet to accommodate new bike lanes and sidewalks. A new stormwater drainage system was also installed.


8/21/2010 2

Figure 1: Project Location

Figure 2: Project Site Map


8/21/2010 3

CASE STUDY SUMMARY The Northshore Drive Road and Drainage Improvements Project has met 6 of the 11 Greenroads Project Requirements. In order to achieve any preset certification level all 11 Project Requirements must be completed and documented.

Twenty‐nine (29) of the 108 possible voluntary credits were earned, with no additional points awarded for proposed custom credits, bringing the total number of credits earned to 29 of 118 possible. This would not qualify the project for a Greenroads rating if Project Requirements were met.

This project shows that a low level of additional effort will earn up to 52 Voluntary Credit points (not including Custom Credit points). This is a large portion of the points required for a Greenroads Gold certification, but the project would need to incorporate 2 additional points to meet that award level. By pursuing practices that require a moderate or high level of additional effort (or a combination of all three), all four certification levels up to Evergreen appear to be feasible.

The Greenroads Scorecard for this project is included as Appendix C.

Table 1 summarizes the results of this Greenroads Case Study.

Table 1: Summary of Case Study Results

Project Name Northshore Drive Road & Drainage Improvements

Project Requirements Met (of 11 Total) 6

Qualify for Certification Level None

Voluntary Credit Points Pursued (of 108 Total) 29

Voluntary Credit Points Earned (of 108 Total) 29

Custom Credits Identified 0

Comments PRs Incomplete

Potential Award Level at Low Additional Effort Silver

Potential Award Level at Moderate Additional Effort Gold

Potential Award Level at High Additional Effort Evergreen


8/21/2010 4

CREDIT DISCUSSION BY CATEGORY This section contains a detailed review of credits awarded and not awarded to the Northshore Drive Road and Drainage Improvements Project. Credit intent will not be discussed, and the reader is referred to Appendix B for these details.

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (PR)

Six (6) of 11 Project Requirements were met through conventional practice. These are outlined in Table 2. Additionally, five (5) of these requirements are included as best practices in the City of Bellingham Standard Specifications.

Table 2: Project Requirements Category

*Denotes reference in Standard Specifications, or institutional best practice.

PR‐1 Environmental Review Process City of Bellingham provided a copy of a Letter of Determination of Non‐Significance (DNS) that states a SEPA checklist was completed on April 14, 2008. This is one of the specified documents for proof of completion of this requirement.

PR‐2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) Not performed on this project. This is not typically done by the Local Agency. This could be achieved easily because they do have maintenance plans in place and could value them for the life cycle of the pavement.

PR‐3 Lifecycle Inventory (LCI) This was informally performed during the design phase, according to Freeman Anthony of the City of Bellingham. There is no documentation of any actual LCI or any indication that any empirical LCI influenced the design of the project. This project requirement could easily be achieved with the use of Greenroads PaLATE software available at www.greenroads.us.

PR‐4 Quality Control Plan The City of Bellingham does not normally request contractors complete a Quality Control Plan. They would need to require the contractor to produce a Quality Control Plan in the future to meet this Greenroads requirement.

PR‐5 Noise Mitigation Plan The City has noise standards that preclude certain hours of work. There is no formal Noise Mitigation Plan; this would need to be completed to meet this project requirement for certification. This would be quite easy since they already have noise standards in place.

PR‐6 Waste Management Plan The City of Bellingham does not currently require waste management plans on their projects. This must be completed on future projects to achieve a Greenroads rating.

Requirements Met Requirements Not Met

No. Title No. Title

PR‐1 Environmental Review Process* PR‐2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

PR‐5 Noise Mitigation Plan* PR‐3 Lifecycle Inventory (LCI)

PR‐7 Pollution Prevention Plan* PR‐4 Quality Control Plan

PR‐8 Low‐Impact Development (LID)* PR‐6 Waste Management Plan

PR‐9 Pavement Maintenance Plan* PR‐10 Site Maintenance Plan

PR‐11 Educational Outreach


8/21/2010 5

PR‐7 Pollution Prevention Plan A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan was created by the contractor for this project. For Greenroads certification a copy of the SWPPP would need to be submitted. This is a requirement and all projects for the City of Bellingham should meet this PR.

PR‐8 Low‐Impact Development (LID) The City of Bellingham always requires this, but their documents do not specifically call out LID. Geotechnical reports and a stormwater design report have been provided that would meet the requirements of this project requirement but should be changed slightly to include LID specifically for Greenroads certification.

PR‐9 Pavement Management Program Bellingham has a Pavement Management System, which meets this project requirement, in which they perform yearly reviews and maintain an operating list of the road status (with a point system) and necessary repairs.

PR‐10 Site Maintenance Plan This project includes landscape maintenance as a part of the contract for the first two years and then maintenance becomes part of City operations. The city also has a system wide maintenance plan that scores roads based on their deficiencies and the worst scores get the required attention. A stand‐alone site maintenance plan or other documentation from the current plan would need to be provided showing a plan to regularly maintain the roadway, stormwater system, roadside vegetation, snow and ice control, traffic control infrastructure, and cleaning. The City of Bellingham already has maintenance plans in place, but it would require a little more effort to demonstrate that this project requirement can be met.

PR‐11 Educational Outreach There was an initial meeting with the neighborhood association board and a neighborhood meeting for public comment prior to the project. There was also a full open house presentation of the plans at 90% design for public comment. A weekly email was sent out to neighboring residents and there was a project website. A follow up presentation was made to a second grade class for a neighboring school. This meets 3 of the educational elements in the project requirement, the requirement for the PR.

ENVIRONMENT & WATER (EW)

This project earned 6 of the 21 points available in this category. The achieved credits, Runoff Flow Control and Runoff Quality, were acquired because of the permeable pavement runoff system and decrease in runoff area. The credits earned in this category are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Environment & Water Voluntary Credit Category

EW‐1 Environmental Management System The prime contractor was not ISO 14001:2004 certified and did not produce an EMS. This would require a high level of effort for the contractor to become certified.

Credits Earned Credits Not Earned

No. Title No. Title

EW‐2 Runoff Flow Control EW‐1 Environmental Management System

EW‐3 Runoff Quality EW‐4 Stormwater Cost Analysis

EW‐5 Site Vegetation

EW‐6 Habitat Restoration

EW‐7 Ecological Connectivity

EW‐8 Light Pollution


8/21/2010 6

EW‐2 Runoff Flow Control A project drainage design report was produced that shows the smaller area of impervious surface for the new pavement. The now pervious surfaces filter down to an under drain where the flow is collected and treated. This document does not calculate the 90th percentile average annual rainfall event. The document does not express runoff volume achieved as a percent of predevelopment volume, but it does indicated that it should be greater than the existing roadway, with a list of BMPs that were installed. 100% of predevelopment flow and total runoff volume achieved for an existing alignment is worth 3 points.

EW‐3 Runoff Quality The project drainage design report was used to show that the amount of impermeable surfaces decreased. This means the post development runoff volume will be less than the predevelopment runoff volume, but exact values cannot be determined due to lack of data. Because this is at least 100% of predevelopment total runoff volume achieved with an existing alignment that is good for 3 points. Detailed calculations and a description of the decision making are shown in Appendix D, Project Calculations.

EW‐4 Stormwater Cost Analysis The City puts some thought into this but has no formal process in place. To earn this credit the City would need to implement an actual LCCA tool or spreadsheet and show the results of this analysis and how it influenced the decision making for stormwater design.

EW‐5 Site Vegetation A vegetation or landscape plan was not created for this project and the project plans and specifications do not call for non‐invasive plant species, native plant species, or plants that do not require irrigation. This credit would require minimal additional effort to achieve on future projects.

EW‐6 Habitat Restoration This credit is not within the scope of this project. The project did not disturb any areas outside of the current right of way, due to the fact it is primarily a pavement overlay project.

EW‐7 Ecological Connectivity This credit is not within the scope of this project. It does not have any significant impact to area wildlife since it is not disturbing any land outside of the existing structure and because of its urban setting.

EW‐8 Light Pollution No lighting safety study was performed for this project. Dark‐sky certification was not specified or installed. Though Northshore Drive is an arterial, residential lighting was applied due to the residential nature of the street. This may help to reduce the area light pollution but does not meet the requirements of the credit. This could be achieved with a minimal additional effort.

ACCESS & EQUITY (AE)

This project earned 9 of the 30 points available in this category. The credits earned in this category were due to context sensitive solutions that were pursued for encouraging transportation modes other than driving. The credits are outlined in Table 4.


8/21/2010 7

Table 4: Access & Equity Voluntary Credit Category

AE‐1 Safety Audit A Road Safety Audit was not completed for this project and did not meet the requirements for the FHWA’s Road Safety Audit Guidelines. This would be very easy to achieve.

AE‐2 Intelligent Transportation Systems The City of Bellingham does not currently implement ITS applications on their projects. On this portion of highway is not likely to be necessary or worth the additional cost. It is being considered outside of the scope of the project.

AE‐3 Context Sensitive Solutions This project does not have a Context Sensitive Planning white paper, a requirement for credit towards Greenroads certification. The City does however perform analyses of this nature for their projects and is being awarded the points for this pilot project report. For future Greenroads certifications the City should implement a standard white sheet form for projects that can be followed and can lead to implementing credits AE‐4 through AE‐7.

AE‐4 Traffic Emissions Reduction There was no usage of MOVES 2010 documented and no evidence of total emissions reductions achieved for GHG and criteria pollutants. The project design may reduce the usage of motor vehicles, and thus traffic emissions, because of the addition of bicycle and pedestrian access, but there is no supporting documentation of this. This would require a moderate effort to achieve.

AE‐5 Pedestrian Access New sidewalks were added as part of the new alignment and context sensitive solutions. For Greenroads certification the project CSS white paper should include information about the purpose and need of pedestrian access, regulatory or jurisdictional standards addressed, results of public input, total cost associated with new pedestrian facilities, and a copy of the contract specifications and plans for the new pedestrian facilities.

AE‐6 Bicycle Access New bicycle‐only facilities were added to the ROW for this project. This context sensitive solution should be included in the CSS white paper and include purpose and need for bicycle access, regulatory and jurisdictional standards addressed, results of public input, total cost associated with new bicycle facilities, and contract specifications and plans for the new bicycle facilities.

AE‐7 Transit and HOV Access This credit is not within the scope of this project. No changes were made to any transit frequency or access and there are no HOV facilities associated with project.


No. Title No. Title

AE‐3 Context Sensitive Solutions AE‐1 Safety Audit

AE‐5 Pedestrian Access AE‐2 Intelligent Transportation Systems

AE‐6 Bicycle Access AE‐4 Traffic Emissions Reduction

AE‐7 Transit and HOV Access

AE‐8 Scenic Views

AE‐9 Cultural Outreach


8/21/2010 8

AE‐8 Scenic Views This credit is not within the scope of this project. The route is not designated a scenic byway. The project is located on the beautiful Lake Whatcom, but there was no implementation of scenic viewpoints or anything that would qualify for this credit.

AE‐9 Cultural Outreach No points were earned for AE‐9. No artwork was incorporated into the project. There are many historical places listed on the National Register of Historic Places within 10 miles, but they are in the downtown Bellingham area. It would not be very practical to sign for these historic places, so getting the one point would happen. The full two points however could be earned for the budget allocation for art, but this would require significantly more effort to achieve.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (CA)

For this category, one (1) of the 14 possible voluntary credits was earned. The City of Bellingham does not currently have a lot of specified requirements for these categories. To earn many of these credits in the future, the contract specifications would likely need to be modified to include these activities. The credits are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Construction Activities Voluntary Credit Category

CA‐1 Quality Management System The prime contractor did not have ISO 9001:2008 or ISO 9001:2000 certification and did not complete a quality management system document. It would be difficult to find a certified contractor for a project of this size. For the City of Bellingham to get credit for CA‐1, they should probably write project specifications that require writing a QMS document including quality policy and objective, quality manual, listing of documented procedures, and listing of records retained in accordance with the QMS. This would require a high amount of additional effort to achieve.

CA‐2 Environmental Training There was no documented environmental training for the Northshore Drive project. Freeman Anthony said the City of Bellingham will look into performing this on future projects. This would require little additional effort.

CA‐3 Site Recycling Plan No site recycling plan was created for this project. The City of Bellingham is going to look into requiring this for future projects and this would require low additional effort to achieve.

CA‐4 Fossil Fuel Reduction The prime contractor did not perform fossil fuel reduction measures as necessary for this credit. To achieve this credit the prime contractor would have to submit a signed letter describing the fossil fuel reduction measures and the percentage reduction achieved as well as a spreadsheet summarizing receipts for all fuel used in nonroad equipment for the project. In the future this would possibly be a bid item for the City of


No. Title No. Title

CA‐6 Paving Emission Reduction CA‐1 Quality Management System

CA‐2 Environmental Training

CA‐3 Site Recycling Plan

CA‐4 Fossil Fuel Reduction

CA‐5 Equipment Emission Reduction

CA‐7 Water Use Tracking

CA‐8 Contractor Warranty


8/21/2010 9

Bellingham. Biofuels are not typically run in equipment in this area, therefore it is currently being considered outside of the scope of this project.

CA‐5 Equipment Emission Reduction This project did not utilize equipment that had exhaust retrofits and fuel efficiency technologies that achieve EPA Tier 4 emission standards. Equipment that is typically used in the area does not generally conform to this requirement, so this credit is being considered outside of the scope of the project.

CA‐6 Paving Emission Reduction This is a standard for the City of Bellingham. For Greenroads certification, a copy of the manufacturing certification and a signed statement by the paving contractor, stating that the approved paver was used for at least 90% of the HMA paving, would need to be submitted.

CA‐7 Water Use Tracking Contractors are required to track water use from the city system and are required to pay for water use, as an incentive to conserve water. Very little additional effort would be required to earn this credit by compiling a report detailing the date of use, amount, location, each construction activity requiring water, total water quantity used for each activity, and total cost of water used.

CA‐8 Contractor Warranty A contractor warranty was not implemented on this project. There was a one year pedestrian safety warranty as a bid item. This was a new idea for the City of Bellingham and they are looking forward to seeing how this goes. To achieve this credit the warranty would have to cover, at a minimum, the constructed portions of the pavement structure for three years. This would require extra contract work, being an already completed Pilot Project, so it is being considered outside the scope of the project.

MATERIALS & RESOURCES (MR)

For this category, ten (10) of the 23 possible voluntary credits were earned. This project scores well in this category because it is an overlay project and because of its local materials. These credits are outlined in Table 6.

Table 6: Materials & Resources Voluntary Credit Category

MR‐1 Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) A LCA was not performed for this project. The City of Bellingham has little or no experience performing Lifecycle Assessment and this would require an exceptional amount of effort. It is being considered outside of the scope of the project.

MR‐2 Pavement Reuse The entire existing pavement was reused on this project as a base for the new overlay. This is standard procedure for the City of Bellingham. Rather than removing the existing pavement, it is surface ground and left in place to serve as a solid base for the new pavement. This earns the full 5 points that are available.

MR‐3 Earthwork Balance


No. Title No. Title

MR‐2 Pavement Reuse MR‐1 Lifecycle Assessment (LCA)

MR‐5 Regional Materials MR‐3 Earthwork Balance

MR‐4 Recycled Materials

MR‐6 Energy Efficiency


8/21/2010 10

This credit was not achieved for this project. There was very little earthwork, as it is a pavement overlay project. There was a small amount of earthwork for realignment and grading as necessary to match the new roadway, and topsoil was brought in from off‐site. This credit does not apply to an overlay project such as this.

MR‐4 Recycled Materials The project used 20% RAP in the HMA pavements, as the state DOT commonly does. This would be enough to earn the project 2 points, but no documentation has been provided to show this. If this is in fact the case it would take very little effort to compile documentation proving the use of RAP. Under the current WSDOT restrictions, using more than 20% RAP is outside of the scope of the project.

MR‐5 Regional Materials This project used materials that were from local sources. The gravel base and fill materials were from Arnold Finkbonner & Sons, Inc. in Ferndale, WA. The HMA was from Whatcom Builders, Inc. in Bellingham, WA. Concrete was from Cowden Gravel & Ready Mix in Bellingham, WA. Topsoil was from North Hill Resources, Inc. in Burlington, WA. Grates and frames were from the Olympic Foundry in Seattle, WA. More than 95% of the basic materials traveled less than a front haul distance of 100 miles. Lighting came from Omaha, NE, which does not meet the fronthaul requirement, but does not constitute enough of the project materials by weight to prevent the credit from being achieved. For certification a spreadsheet would need to be created with an itemized list of each material, its weight, fronthaul distances, and a computation showing that 95% of the materials meet the requirements.

MR‐6 Energy Efficiency The project did not install lighting systems with luminaries that meet or exceed the 2009 Energy Star standard for roadway lighting. The project did however install lighting that should be more energy efficient relative to those used by a typical corridor such as this. Lighting was installed according to a residential rather than arterial standard because of the residential nature of the road. The project could have achieved this credit with a minimum effort by installing Energy Star approved lighting.

PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES (PT)

For this category, three (3) of the 20 possible voluntary credits was earned. The only points earned in this section were because of the use of permeable pavements. The use of warm mix pavements and a pavement performance tracking system would be the easiest way to achieve more points. The credits are shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Pavement Technologies Voluntary Credit Category

PT‐1 Long Life Pavement This project did not meet the requirements of this credit. It was designed using a typical pavement profile compared to past City projects and the existing structure that received the overlay is of varying thickness, with unknown base CBR values. Since no calculation to indicate the total percentage of the roadway that meets the long‐life limitations listed in the credit has been done and the unknown variables involved it is difficult to know the overall strength of the structure. Long life pavements are being considered outside of the scope of this project.

PT‐2 Permeable Pavement


No. Title No. Title

PT‐2 Permeable Pavement PT‐1 Long‐Life Pavement

PT‐3 Warm Mix Asphalt

PT‐4 Cool Pavement

PT‐5 Quiet Pavement

PT‐6 Pavement Performance Tracking


8/21/2010 11

This project utilized permeable asphalt pavement for bike lanes and sidewalks with traditional asphalt pavement used for the roadway. For Greenroads certification, a hydrology report and calculations of the treatment area would need to be completed as well as an official permeable pavement mix design document.

PT‐3 Warm Mix Asphalt Warm mix asphalt was not used on this project. The City of Bellingham will likely wait until the state DOT starts to use this technology more before trying it themselves. This would be easy to achieve as there are already some pavement suppliers in the area that have their plants set up for warm mix asphalt.

PT‐4 Cool Pavement Cool pavement was not used on this project. The bulk of the pavements are asphalt based and would not provide a cool surface. This credit could also have been earned if the permeable pavement usage was greater than the impermeable pavement on the project. Only about 25% of the paved surfaces used permeable pavement. This is no doubt a good thing, but is not enough to earn the cool pavement credit. It would take a considerable effort to implement cool pavement on this project.

PT‐5 Quiet Pavement The project does not qualify for usage of quiet pavement because the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. The posted speed limit has to be greater than 30 mph to be eligible for this credit.

PT‐6 Pavement Performance Tracking The City of Bellingham has a pavement performance tracking system in which they assign points to deficiencies and structural and design issues, with the highest scoring roads receiving repairs. This system would only have to be modified slightly to meet the Greenroads requirements. It would need to integrate construction quality measurements with the long‐term pavement performance measurements to give a better idea of how construction affects the performance. It must also show that measurements are taken every 2 years and at be spatially located at specific locations. It would require little additional effort for this credit to be achieved.

POTENTIAL CUSTOM CREDITS

Zero (0) best practices implemented on this project were identified as possibly meriting a designation as a Greenroads Custom Credit. A total of zero (0) additional points are tentatively awarded. Table 8 provides the credit title and intent.

Table 8: Potential Custom Credits

RECOMMENDATIONS This project is on the verge of being able to be scored as Greenroads certified. If the City of Bellingham were to perform projects similar to this in the future, specification additions that require the production of certain documentation and small changes to project materials and construction activities could easily earn similar projects a certified or silver rating. Gold or evergreen ratings could even be achieved with a modest effort. The use of permeable pavements is a great start to creating more environmentally friendly roadway. These pavements can also use warm mix technologies. The use of more permeable pavements could also help to achieve the cool pavement credit. Some of the other credits that are likely to be the easiest to achieve are the construction activity credits, by creating a site recycling plan, requiring environmental training, and tracking water use. There are many other strategies that could be used to improve the project’s Greenroads score but it is important to note that the project already does a substantial amount and could take the next step toward certification with only minimal additional effort.

No. Title Pts. Description

N/A None N/A N/A


8/21/2010 12

LIMITATIONS Case study results are based on discussions with City of Bellingham representatives only, and any project documents provided to the University of Washington Review Team. In general, more case studies of varying project types are needed to better reflect current City sustainability practices. This case study provides only a small glimpse of current efforts on a specific project, and therefore study results may not accurately reflect the level of effort made toward sustainability best practices that are put forward by similar project types within the City of Bellingham.

Regulatory requirements tend to dictate many of the actions of most roadway project teams and transportation agencies. However, the intent of Greenroads is to encourage best practices that go above and beyond existing United States regulations and requirements. A list of current regulatory requirements is provided in the Introduction to the Greenroads Manual (Muench & Anderson, ed. 2010).

Greenroads is continually under development. Case studies completed under the version 1.0.1 rating system that has been used to rate this project may not score equivalently under future versions of Greenroads.

REFERENCES City of Bellingham Standard Specifications

City of Bellingham Project Plans

City of Bellingham Project Documents

Muench, S.T., Anderson, J.L., Hatfield, J.P., Koester, J.R., & Söderlund, M. et al. (2010). Greenroads Rating System v1.0. (J.L. Anderson and S.T. Muench, Eds.). Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Anderson, J.L. (2008) Sustainability in Civil Engineering.

Robèrt, K. ‐H. (2000). Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development, and to each other? Journal of Cleaner Production. 8(3), 243‐254.

Max‐Neef. M.A.; Elizalde, A. and Hopenhayn, H. (1991) Human scale development: conception, application and further reflections. New York: The Apex Press.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivations. Psychological Review. 50(4), 370‐396.

Hawken, P.; Lovins, A.B. and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural capitalism: creating the next industrial revolution (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Little Brown and Co.

APPENDIX A

About the Greenroads Rating System

ABOUT GREENROADS This section details the Greenroads Sustainability Performance Metric, including a brief background on development of the system, the operating definition of sustainability used, and a brief description of how it works and can be implemented. More detailed information, including the Version 1.0.1 manual of requirements and credits can be found on the official Greenroads website: http://www.greenroads.us.

The list of credits including a brief description is attached at the end of this short appendix.

BACKGROUND

Greenroads is a research project (Söderlund, 2007) that is jointly developed by the University of Washington (UW) and CH2M HILL. Greenroads is a collection of sustainability best practices that apply to roadway design and construction, much like the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System for Buildings that is administered by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). In general, these sustainability best practices are divided into two types: required and voluntary. There is currently one required category with 11 required best practices called “Project Requirements” or PRs. At minimum, all of these best practices must be completed in order for a roadway to be considered a Greenroad.

What is a Greenroad? A Greenroad is defined as roadway project that has been designed and constructed to a level of sustainability that is substantially higher than current common practice.

What is Sustainability? Sustainability is the characteristic of a system that represents its capacity to support natural laws and human values. (Anderson, 2008; Muench et. al, 2010)

Projects that register using the Greenroads website are eligible to earn a certification award and will be able to display the Greenroads logo on their project to recognize their achievement.

STRUCTURE OF THE METRIC

In general, the Greenroads sustainability best practices are divided into two types: required and voluntary. There is currently one required category with 11 required best practices called “Project Requirements” or PRs. At minimum, all of these best practices must be completed in order for a roadway to be considered a Greenroad. Thirty‐seven (37) other voluntary best practices are characterized in five additional categories, called “voluntary credits” or VCs. After the PR requirements have been met, a number of different VCs may be achieved and points may be earned toward one of four ratings: Certified, Silver, Gold and Evergreen. Additionally, a sixth VC category is available to projects that demonstrate and implement innovative ideas or more sustainable practices and would like to write or submit their own customized or new ideas for points.

Following is a brief description of the seven categories in Greenroads. The relative weights of the five main VC categories are shown in Figure A.1.

Project Requirements This category contains all 11 Project Requirements (PR) that a Greenroads project must meet in order to be considered for a certification level award. The general intent of this category is to encourage environmentally responsible decision‐making processes and to have management plans in place for construction, and to establish a minimum baseline for every project that applies for certification.

Environment & Water (EW) This category contains eight (8) voluntary credits worth up to 21 points. The intent of this category is to promote best practices related to stormwater management and ecological resources within the project boundary.

Access & Equity (AE) This category contains nine (9) voluntary credits worth up to 30 points. The intent of this category is to promote safety, access, and mobility to users of the roadway.

Construction Activities (CA) This category contains eight (8) voluntary credits worth up to 14 points. The intent of this category is to promote responsible construction management, reduce use of fossil fuels and improve health and safety of construction workers.

Materials & Resources (MR) This category contains six (6) voluntary credits worth up to 23 points. The intent of this category is to promote responsible materials and energy management by combinations of recycling, reusing and reducing both virgin and waste materials.

Pavement Technologies (PT) This category contains six (6) voluntary credits worth up to 20 points. The intent of this category is to highlight specific pavement engineering innovations and ideas or broad types of technologies or techniques which are well‐established in practice and have direct sustainability benefits.

Custom Credits (CC) This category contains up to 10 credits which may be earned by a project that implements sustainable or innovative ideas. The project team may submit applications with a detailed description and explanation of the practice to earn credits in this category ranging in value from 1 to 5 points. Points awarded for the custom credit are determined through review and collaboration with Greenroads representatives. There is currently no limit established for how many custom credits a project may submit for review.

Figure A.3. Relative Weights of Greenroads VC Categories (Muench et al. 2010)

APPENDIX B

Case Study Method

REVIEW METHODS There are four types of Greenroads evaluations that vary in formality, objectives, time required, and level of effort for communication and documentation. This project review constitutes what is called a Case Study. All four methods are listed with a short description below for context of the method used.

What is a Workshop Assessment? A workshop assessment is the least formal evaluation and requires no documentation. The format is interactive and discussion‐based. Select PRs and VCs are reviewed to determine feasibility for a specific project while completing the Greenroads checklist. Participation is voluntary, but at least one Project Manager or design team lead should be present. The end result is a completed checklist that may be used as an internal benchmarking tool if desired.

What is a Case Study? Generally a retroactive application of the Greenroads metric done on projects that are already completed, case studies are part of the calibration and testing process for validating the metric in its current state. Case studies include review of some documentation but in most cases, documentation may not be available. Case studies also require communication with a Project Manager, but in‐person interaction is not necessary.

What is a Pilot Project? A pilot project begins after initial completion of a case study. It involves ongoing communication between the Project Team and the Greenroads development team. Ultimately, the purpose of this process is to document and collect information regarding feasibility and practical barriers or successes for implementing some or all of the practices in Greenroads. This process lasts from completion of the case study through completion of the roadway project, and is characterized by regular progress reports. Certification is not guaranteed or part of this process. While pilot projects may begin at any time during design and construction, they are most important to begin early in the design phase or project development. Designated pilot projects may use the Greenroads logo and advertise that they are a Greenroads Pilot Project, but may not reference certification levels or state any award has been achieved.

What is a Certification Review? Certification is the highest level of formality and requires final documentation for verification of earned PRs and VCs at time of evaluation. Projects must complete and document both a Design Review and a Construction Review in order to achieve a Greenroads rating; these two reviews may be done separately or in combination. The certification process includes registration on the Greenroads website, paying associated fees and submitting all documents for reviewed through an electronic process. At this time, there is no third‐party certification available but this is anticipated near the end of 2011.

CASE STUDY METHOD The case study methodology used on this project contains three main steps.

1. Greenroads holds a live discussion with the Project Manager. This discussion helps to identify general information about the project, including the needs and goals, and planning decisions that were made at the outset. Additionally, it helps to identify what information and documentation needs (or whether documentation even exists) in order to proceed with the case study review. The discussion also helps to determine the Project Manager’s current perception of sustainability and how the project could fit with the Greenroads metric. Typically, this step includes a brief overview and discussion of each credit. Ultimately, the conversation should allow the review team to understand what “perceived level of effort” may be required in order to establish or document whether or not a particular sustainability best practice has been implemented on a project. Perceived level of effort is further explained below.

2. Based on this discussion, review of documents provided, follow‐up communication, Greenroads completes the Greenroads Project Checklist for the project. The Checklist shows the number of project requirements (PR)

that have been met by the project, any voluntary credits achieved and points awarded, and also the certification award level achieved, if any. Additionally, the checklist shows the potential levels achievable if various levels of effort were to be pursued during the planning, design or construction process. On request, the checklist can also show which credits directly or indirectly provide a greenhouse gas (GHG) benefit. The checklist is submitted for review by the Project Manager.

3. Finally, Greenroads generates a brief report of the results of the case study and provides recommendations based on these results and the scope of work for the study. The format for a case study report is likely to be a short informational memorandum rather than a detailed technical report, though more detailed case study reports may be warranted in special situations or requested.

Generally, this methodology was used for this project. Any deviations from this method are identified within the report.

WHAT IS “PERCEIVED LEVEL OF EFFORT”? During the discussion with the Project Manager (PM), Greenroads establishes the potential for each credit to be achieved according to PM and the Greenroads reviewer. This is largely a gage of subjective perceptions unless documentation is provided to support achievement of a particular VC (or otherwise indicates it was not achieved).

DEFINING “EFFORT”

“Effort” is defined by any of the following, or combinations of the following:

Amount of documentation required by Greenroads

Amount of time to provide and generate documentation that is in addition to standard project documentation (not typically included in tender packages)

Amount of resources that may or may not be physically available or accessible to complete a task, implement a technology or practice, or to document them

Amount of money involved in acquiring and documenting a Greenroads credit

Conflicts with existing regulatory standards, if any

Conflicts with implementing Greenroads credits in the design process, if any

Conflicts with implementing Greenroads credits in the construction process, if any

Low Effort A low level of effort represents a low difficulty in providing information to the Greenroads team (for example, documentation exists as part of the standard bid package) or involves very little additional administrative resources and time to produce evidence that the credit requirements were achieved. Low effort also could mean a low‐ or no‐ cost addition or minor design change to the project, or that the intent of the credit does not obviously conflict with existing regulations or standards. This designation may also represent a perceived high availability of physical materials or equipment.

Note that a designation of low effort may represents any credit that was achieved by regulatory means or similar policy and standards because it is assumed that the task must be completed in order to meet requirements other than those outlined in Greenroads Project Requirements or Voluntary Credits. An example of a low effort is submitting a standardized design document, such as a pavement alternatives study, to meet the criteria for the Life Cycle Cost Analysis (PR‐2) requirement.

Moderate Effort This perception level falls somewhere between Low and High depending on interpretation of the Project Manager. Moderate effort may also reflect an educational endeavor or public awareness program where there is a learning curve involved for the design team, agency or construction team on the project.

In some rare cases, a moderate level of effort may be a reflection of the average perceptions of the review team and the Project Manager. Where possible, this distinction is made in the Reviewer Comments section of the Checklists for each individual project. As an example case, Ecological Connectivity (EW‐7) is a high priority for an agency and their project. However, much of the perceived effort, specifically the cost and time required for detailed environmental review, was required by the federal law under the National Environmental Policy Act due to the project’s location in an ecologically sensitive area. While the Project Manager perceived that the project had gone above and beyond conventional design, planning, and cost expenditures for environmental considerations (corresponding to a very high level of effort), the review team recognizes that they were clearly required to do so by federal policy. However, the review team also recognizes that not every project is located in a highly ecologically sensitive area and therefore this effort, though regulated, does have merit due to the resulting positive ecological impact.

High Effort This level of perception indicates a significant design process change or regulatory change would need to happen in order to achieve a credit and meet the credit requirements as specified in the Greenroads Manual. High effort also reflects significant added cost (for example, above 3% of total project cost). For example, Performance‐Based Warranty (CA‐8) is considered a high level of effort, because it would require a significantly larger risk to be taken by the contractor (three years instead of the some agency standard one year warranties), which would likely be reflected in the project budget as an added cost.

Not Applicable (N/A) It is not possible for any single project to earn all of the credits in Greenroads. Where a particular credit was not appropriate for a project, this credit was designated “not applicable.” For example, the Energy Efficiency credit (MR‐6) is not applicable on a project without any electric lighting installed.

APPENDIX C

Greenroads Project Checklist

CHECKLIST EXPLANATION This Appendix provides a description of the Greenroads Project Checklist. A checklist has been completed for this case study following this page. This part of the case study evaluation supplements the more detailed discussion of results contained in the body of the report.

STRUCTURE OF CHECKLIST

Generally, the Greenroads Project Checklist is divided into three worksheets in Excel 2007. The total number of points earned by the project and how they appear on the Greenroads Project Checklist depends on the level of effort (in Appendix B) attempted for each PR and VC.

The three worksheets are as follows:

Blank Checklist. The first sheet is a blank and abridged version of the Greenroads Project Checklist. This sheet does not contain any calculations and is available for general use.

Project Checklist. The second sheet calculates the total points earned by the project by achievement of VCs and completion of the Project Requirements. The credits are divided by category and each credit is assigned logic and a corresponding dropdown menu of choices that relevant to specific credit requirements listed in the Greenroads Manual.

Summary Checklist. The last sheet is a self‐computing abridged version of the Greenroads Project Checklist. This sheet is a concise way to display the Project Checklist results in one page. All calculations are automatic and cannot be edited.

Project Checklist Worksheet Details These items below are specific to the Checklist worksheet, which is the primary user interface.

Defaults. The Greenroads Project Checklist default values are all set to Yes for the PR category (all must be met for award). All Voluntary Credits are set to “No.”

Project Requirements. PRs carry no point value. On the Checklist they may carry a label of “Yes” or “No” only. If the criteria noted for each PR in the Manual is met, the value is “Yes.” If not, then “No.” If any of these cells say “No” the orange Project Requirements box will display the word “Incomplete” and the score near the bottom of the worksheet will state that no award is achieved.

Voluntary Credits. VC credit requirements are explicitly displayed with an if‐then logic on the Project Checklist worksheet. These requirements vary significantly by credit and are arranged and listed underneath their corresponding credit. (Generally, a project team has two steps to get through: deciding if a credit is possible and then actually earning the credit.) When a dropdown item is chosen, appropriate VC points are populated on the right hand side of the spreadsheet according to classifications of “Y” (Yes ‐ meets credit requirements, documentation provided, etc.), “?” (Maybe – might meet credit requirements but requires additional effort or documentation, etc.), and “N” (No – does not meet credit requirements, credit is not applicable to the project, etc.). The points total according to column and are computed at the end of the spreadsheet to see if the total matches any of the Greenroads award levels.

User Comments. This section is provided as a courtesy to the user and may be completed at will. The presence or absence of comments does influence the final computation of Greenroads score or award level.

NORTHSHORE DRIVE ROAD & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SCORECARD

Project Requirements (PR) Construction Activities (CA) 1 13

CA Subtotal: 14 Y N

PR‐1 Environmental Review Process Req CA‐1 Quality Management System 2 0 2

PR‐2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis Req CA‐2 Environmental Training 1 0 1

PR‐3 Lifecycle Inventory Req CA‐3 Site Recycling Plan 1 0 1

PR‐4 Quality Control Plan Req CA‐4 Fossil Fuel Reduction 2 0 2

PR‐5 Noise Mitigation Plan Req CA‐5 Equipment Emission Reduction 2 0 2

PR‐6 Waste Management Plan Req CA‐6 Paving Emission Reduction 1 1 0

PR‐7 Pollution Prevention Plan Req CA‐7 Water Use Tracking 2 0 2

PR‐8 Low‐Impact Development Req CA‐8 Contractor Warranty 3 0 3

PR‐9 Pavement Management System Req

PR‐10 Site Maintenance Plan Req Materials & Resources (MR) 10 13

PR‐11 Educational Outreach Req MR Subtotal: 23 Y N

MR‐1 Lifecycle Assessment 2 0 2

Environment & Water (EW) 6 15 MR‐2 Pavement Reuse 5 5 0

EW Subtotal 21 Y N MR‐3 Earthwork Balance 1 0 1

EW‐1 Environmental Management System 2 0 2 MR‐4 Recycled Materials 5 0 5

EW‐2 Runoff Flow Control 3 3 0 MR‐5 Regional Materials 5 5 0

EW‐3 Runoff Quality 3 3 0 MR‐6 Energy Efficiency 5 0 5

EW‐4 Stormwater Cost Analysis 1 0 1

EW‐5 Site Vegetation 3 0 3 Pavement Technologies (PT) 3 17

EW‐6 Habitat Restoration 3 0 3 PT Subtotal: 20 Y N

EW‐7 Ecological Connectivity 3 0 3 PT‐1 Long‐Life Pavement 5 0 5

EW‐8 Light Pollution 3 0 3 PT‐2 Permeable Pavement 3 3 0

PT‐3 Warm Mix Asphalt 3 0 3

Access & Equity (AE) 9 21 PT‐4 Cool Pavement 5 0 5

AE Subtotal 30 Y N PT‐5 Quiet Pavement 3 0 3

AE‐1 Safety Audit 2 0 2 PT‐6 Pavement Performance Tracking 1 0 1

AE‐2 Intell igent Transportation Systems 5 0 5

AE‐3 Context Sensitive Solutions 5 5 0 Custom Credit (CC) 0 0

AE‐4 Traffic Emissions Reduction 5 0 5 CC Subtotal: 10 Y N

AE‐5 Pedestrian Access 2 2 0 CC‐1 Custom Credit Title 10 0 0

AE‐6 Bicycle Access 2 2 0

AE‐7 Transit & HOV Access 5 0 5

AE‐8 Scenic Views 2 0 2 Greenroads Total: 118 29 79

AE‐9 Cultural Outreach 2 0 2

Yes

Incomplete

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

APPENDIX D

Project Calculations

EW‐3 Runoff Quality

Pervious and Impervious Area Calculations:

Alabama Ave to Silver Beach Store Total segment length = 2450 ft Total width of cross section = 37.5 ft Existing: 29 ft impervious hot mix asphalt (HMA) Area 29 ft 2450 ft 71,050 ft

8.5ft of pervious grass/gravel Area 8.5 ft 2450 ft 20,825 ft Proposed: 22.5 ft impervious HMA/curb Area 22.5ft 2450 ft 55,125 ft

15 ft pervious HMA (Area 36,750 ft ) – intersections/store front (Area =1750 ft2) = 35,000 ft2

Total new and replaced impervious surface = 56,875 ft2

Decrease in impervious surface = 71,050 ft2 – 55,125 ft2 = 15,925 ft2

Silver Beach Store to Britton Road Total segment length = 1550 ft Total width of cross‐section = 29 ft (excludes existing gutter pan) Existing: 27 ft of impervious HMA Area 27 ft 1550 ft 41,850 ft

2ft of pervious grass/gravel Area 2 ft 1550 ft 3100 ft Proposed: 29 ft of impervious HMA Area 29 ft 1550 ft 44,950 ft Total new and replaced impervious surface = 44,950 ft2

Total existing impervious surface = 112,900 ft2

Increase in Impervious surface = 44,950 ft2 ‐ 41,850 ft2 = 3,100 ft2

Total project new and replaced impervious surface = 101,825 ft2

Net Decrease in Impervious Surface: 112,900 ft2 – 100,075 ft2 = 12,825 ft2

Flow Control Approach

WSDOT Minimum Requirements. After calculations of impervious and converted pervious surfaces are carried out, Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highway Runoff Manual (HRM) were used to determine the minimum requirements applicable for a project. The figures make up a decision tree used to guide the engineer in the applicable minimum requirements when designing a stormwater management facility based on, among other parameters, known areas of impervious and converted pervious surfaces.

The first step of the decision tree is to determine if any exemptions as listed in section 3‐2.2 of the HRM apply. (No exemptions apply for this project). Generally, if the amount of impervious surfaces is greater than a specified minimum value (known as a threshold), certain requirements must be applied to that impervious surface. These values are called “minimum requirements.” Next, based on this decision tree, certain minimum requirements were determined applicable to this project, in particular WSDOT Minimum Requirement 6: Flow Control. According to WSDOT Minimum Requirement 6, “Projects discharging stormwater directly or indirectly through a conveyance system into any of the exempt water bodies shown in Table 3‐5” are exempt from flow control requirements (HRM 3‐3.6.2). Table 3‐5 includes Lake Whatcom. Additional requirements for flow control exemption as listed under section 3‐3.6.2 of the HRM were also met. Thus, the city of Bellingham is exempt from flow control, but it must still comply with the other specifics of Minimum requirement 6: “Regardless of whether an exemption applies, projects need to take advantage of on‐site opportunities to infiltrate storm runoff to the greatest extent feasible.” (HRM 3‐3.6.2) This means the Northshore Drive project must still attempt to infiltrate as much of the runoff as possible. Time of Concentration. Time of concentration values were not calculated for this project, they are not a requirement for projects exempt from flow control, as stated in the HRM. Flowrates: To calculate flowrates the City of Bellingham used the Department of Ecology for the state of Washington’s Western Washington Hydrology Model (Version 3.0). For the Northshore Drive Project the 90th percentile average annual rainfall event flowrates were not available.

% of Predevelopment Flowrate=Qpre/Qpost *100% Runoff Volumes. The 90th percentile average annual rainfall event runoff volumes were not calculated for the project because they are not a requirement for projects exempt from flow control, as stated in the HRM. However, the overall project will have a net decrease in impervious area in the watershed, as shown below. This means the post development runoff volume will be less than the predevelopment runoff volume, but exact values cannot be determined due to lack of data. Because this is at least 100% of predevelopment total runoff volume achieved with an existing alignment that is good for 3 points.

Net Decrease in Impervious Surface: 112,900 ft2 – 100,075 ft2 = 12,825 ft2

Applied Stormwater Best Management Practices

Infiltration: Permeable Pavement surfaces The permeable pavement surfaces are:

5‐foot pervious concrete sidewalks are located from Alabama Street to Poplar Drive.

5‐foot pervious concrete bike lanes are located from Alabama Street to Poplar Drive.

General design criteria were followed as in HRM, page 386. The Estimated long‐term design infiltration rates for proposed stormwater infiltration, developed from site testing and Table 3.7 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington are as follows:

Table 2: Estimated long-term design infiltration rates (Northshore Geotechnical report)

Sample Depth USDA Textural Classification

Infiltration Rate (in/hr)*

T.P.1 @ 2.0’ - 3.0’ Loam 0.13

T.P.4 @ 1.5’ - 2.5’ Sandy Loam 0.25

*Includes the recommended correction factors presented in the SWMM.

According to the HRM, the estimated long‐term infiltration rates may be as low as 0.1 in/hr. Because the soils

under the bike lanes and sidewalks for this project have such low infiltration rates, as determined by the

Geotechnical report, underdrains are required. Underdrain collection systems will serve as collection drains for

the roadway.

For the roadway area from Alabama to Silver Beach Store, the system at Poplar Drive has a built‐in bypass to keep the facility from being surcharged under heavy flows.

The roadway area from Silver Beach Store to Britton road will capture flows from the South and East sides of the roadway and direct them to the Park Place facility, with a high flow bypass to Lake Whatcom.