Planner Module – September 20, 2005 Planners Training Exercise Afternoon Session: 1:30 pm to 4:00 pm TRAINING AGENDA

Planner Module – September 20, 2005

Planners Training Exercise

Afternoon Session: 1:30 pm to 4:00 pm

TRAINING AGENDA

Review Marine Hq Case Study:

Overview:

– Master Planning Process– Discuss Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach

– Benefits of LID – Discuss LID Integration in regards to:

• Objectives• Site Analysis• Benefit Analysis• Site Design Selection• Plan Development

DoD Watershed Management Approach Promotes LID Solutions

Phase 1Quick

Screening Analysisfor Protocol use

Phase 2Assess the Receiving

Watershed(s) Conditions,Impairments,

and Key Restoration Goals

Phase 3

Assess Potential Installation Impacts

A. Document baseline land featuresB. Create baseline compliance site inventoryC. Score baseline burden for each activity

Phase 4Identify Cost-EffectiveSolutions to Mitigate

HighPriority Impacts

Phase 5Identify Partnerships &

Funding Sources

Phase 6Implement Solutions,

Track Progress&Reassess on a Regular

Basis

DoD focus is on implementing LID solutions

Partnerships are key

The DoD Installation Watershed Impact Protocol available on (DENIX) at

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/DOD/Working/CWASSC/Subjects/Watershed/dod_watershed.pdf.

LID important Tool for DoD Planners

• DoD planners must comply with a myriad of watershed-based laws and regulations – Executive Orders

– Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act

• NPDES storm water permits for construction, Phase II storm water MS4 permits

• EPA watershed rule for NDPES Permits (2003)

– Local zoning ordinances

• DoD goal to be sustainable steward of its buildings, lands, and infrastructure in accordance with E.O.s and various voluntary agreements (e.g. Chesapeake Bay Agreement)

LID in new construction and retrofits helps DoD managers achieve sustainable facility goals and cost-effectively minimize impacts on impaired watersheds!

Executive Orders Directing Sustainable Approaches

• EO 13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management, Feb 2004 – Use life-cycle costs for decisions– Incorporate environmental costs

• EO 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management, Apr 2000

– EMS by 2005– Incorporate Beneficial Landscape Practices into Agency landscaping policies by

Apr 01 • EO 13123, Greening The Government Through Efficient Energy

Management, Jun 1999 – Requires sustainable design principles be applied to the siting, design, and

construction of new facilities.• EO 13101, Greening The Government Through Waste Prevention,

Recycling, And Federal Acquisition, Sep 1998

– Agencies should incorporate EO requirements into contracts, including real property acquisition and management.

How LID Is More Sustainable

• Grade to encourage sheet flow and lengthen flow paths.• Maintain natural drainage divides to keep flow paths

dispersed.• Disconnect impervious areas such as pavement and

roofs from the storm drain network.• Preserve the naturally vegetated areas and soil types

that slow runoff, filter out pollutants, and facilitate infiltration.

• Direct runoff into or across vegetated areas to help filter runoff and encourage recharge.

• Treat pollutant loads where they are generated, or prevent their generation.

Overview:– Master Planning Process

– Discuss Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach



Costs of LID Practices and Methods

Type of LID for halfInstallation Costs

O&M Costs (annualized)

Bioretention Cell $10,000 $925 / year

Bioswale $10,000 $600 / year

Tree box $19,000 $950 / year

Sand Filter $30,000 $2,800 / year

Rain barrel $12,500 $900 / year

Green Roof $250,000 $11,600 / year *

Infiltration Device $8,000 $1,125 / year

Permeable Pavement $12,000 $950 / year

Time of Concentration $8,000 $750 / year

Landscaping $5,000 $575 / year

Assumptions:

½ impervious acre.first 0.5” of rainfall is captured.

* Excluding replacement: $1,600 / year

All costs in 2005 dollars includes replacement in year 25

LID Benefits• ENVIRONMENTAL Reduces pollutant loads by volume reduction and

filtering. Bioretention and green roof systems provide superior filtering of oil and grease, TPH, thermal pollutant reduction, atmospheric nitrogen deposition

• WATER CONSERVATION Reduces potable water consumption by minimizing irrigation requirements. Opportunities for cisterns for other non-potable uses.

• ENERGY MANAGEMENT Shading of parking areas. Vegetation orientation reduces energy consumption. Green roof provides energy benefits.

• MAINTENANCE Minimizes maintenance requirements through the utilization of water-efficient, native, adaptable, climate-tolerant plant material

• AESTHETICS Integration of natural landscape design with native plants and additional vegetation in bioretention cells. Green roof may be viewed from building.

Overview:– Master Planning Process– Discuss Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach



Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach

Conventional

• large capital investments in complex and costly engineering strategies

• pipes water to low spots as quickly as possible

LID Design

• Integrates, green space, native landscape, natural hydrology functions to generate less runoff.

• Uses micro-scale techniques to manage precipitation as close to where it hits the ground as possible

Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach

Conventional vs. LID: Military Housing Development

UFC

Conventional vs. LID Stormwater Management

Condition CN Tc

Peak Discharge (CFS)

2-year Storm 3” Depth

Peak Discharge (CFS) 10-year Storm 5” Depth

Volume (Depth in Inches) 2-Year Storm

Event

Volume (Depth in Inches) 10-Year Storm Event

Proposed Condition – conventional CN

85 0.20 13 27 1.6 3.4

Proposed Condition using LID Design

73 0.23 6 18 0.9 2.3

Existing Condition 63 0.23 2 11 0.4 1.5

Table 10-6. Summary of Graphical Peak Discharge Results

Overview:– Master Planning Process– Discuss Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach

– Benefits of LID

– Discuss LID Integration in regards to:


LID Integration: Objectives

Identify the LID objectives for the project. • Consider these four fundamental aspects of

stormwater control:• Runoff Volume• Peak Runoff Rate • Flow Frequency and Duration • Water Quality

• Determine the goals and feasibility for runoff volume, flow frequency and duration, water quality and on-site use of stormwater (e.g. irrigation).

• Define hydrologic controls required to meet objectives

LID Integration: Site Analysis

• Evaluate the site design for the best and most appropriate site design strategies

• Stormwater management controls should be located as close as possible to the sources of potential impacts.

• The objective is to consider the potential of every part of the landscape, building(s), and infrastructure

• Preference should be given to those that use natural systems, processes, and materials.

LID Integration: Benefit Analysis

• The cost-effectiveness of LID-based projects may affect DoD approval.

• LID projects that incorporate newer technology may involve higher design and construction costs and may take more time to receive approval

• depends on the level of experience that the project managers, engineers, and contractors have with LID techniques, and on the receptiveness of permitting authorities to LID practices.

• the cost of implementing LID will decrease as institutional experience increases and the benefits of using LID are realized in practice.

LID Integration: Site Design Selection• A site evaluation will facilitate LID design development by

providing site details that will assist in the development of an LID program.

• Conduct a detailed investigation of the site using available documents, such as drainage maps, utilities information, soils maps, land use plans, and aerial photographs.

• Perform an on-site evaluation highlighting opportunities, such as pollutant-generating areas, potential disconnects from CSOs, and potential green corridors.

• Evaluate site constraints, such as available space, soil infiltration characteristics, water table, slope, drainage patterns, sunlight, shade, wind, critical habitat, circulation and underground utilities.

LID Integration: Plan Development

• Identify protected areas, setbacks, easements, topographic features, subdrainage divides, and other site features that should be protected (i.e. floodplains, steep slopes and wetlands)

• Delineate the watershed and microwatershed areas. Take into account previously modified drainage patterns, roads, and stormwater conveyance systems.

• Locate baseline hydrologic and water quality data. In order of preference, try to locate:

– Local stream gage data and site water quality sampling data– Data from a similar area within region– Local averages– Modeling results

• Identify applicable local regulations or codes.

LID Integration: Plan Development (continued)

• Use hydrology as a design element to minimize the runoff potential of the development. – open drainage systems can help to integrate the site with its natural

features, creating a more aesthetically pleasing landscape.

• Determine design storm(s). Regulatory requirements for design storms may also be stipulated in local ordinances, and these may limit or constrain the use of LID techniques or necessitate that structural controls be employed in conjunction with LID techniques.

• Define modeling technique(s) to be employed. – The model selected will depend on the type of watershed, complexity of

the site planning considerations, familiarity of the agency with the model, and level of detail desired.

• Evaluate current conditions.


• Implement non-structural site planning techniques:– Minimize total site impervious area– Use alternative roadway layouts that minimize imperviousness– Reduce road widths– Limit sidewalks to one side of roads– Reduce on-street parking– Use permeable paving materials, such as permeable pavers or

porous asphalt.

• Minimize directly connected impervious areas

• Modify drainage flow paths to increase time of concentration (Tc)

• Define development envelope.


• Evaluate site planning benefits and compare with baseline values. The modeling analysis is used to evaluate the cumulative hydrologic benefit of the site planning process in terms of the four evaluation measures.

• Evaluate the need for Integrated Management Practices (IMPs). If site planning is not sufficient to meet site LID objectives, additional hydrologic control needs may be addressed through the use of IMPs.

• Evaluate supplemental needs. If after use of IMPs supplemental control for either volume or peak flow is still needed, selection and listing of additional management techniques should be considered.


Design LID Site or Master Plan• Sketch a design concept that distributes the LID

practices appropriately around the project site.

• Develop a master plan that identifies all key control issues (water quality, water quantity, water conservation) and implementation areas. Specify specific LID technologies and any connections they have to stormwater overflow units and sub-surface detention facilities.

Break: 2:15 – 2:30pm

II. Complete 1391 for Integration of LID Approach into New Construction of Stormwater System Projects: 2:30 - 4:00pm

– Funding Aspects– Development of Planning Objectives,

NEPA & Performance Indicators– 1391 Process/Completion

Funding Recommendations

• Optimize Funding Sources through Integrated Program Management

• Coordinate Planning, Engineering & Environmental Installation Efforts

• Tie Project Justification to Environmental Management System Requirements, Sustainability & Environmental Compliance Requirements

DOD Budget Process-PPBS (Planning, Programming, & Budgeting System)

• Installations Budget Requirements over 6 Year Period for Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) Based on Legal Requirements and Program Goals.

• Program Budget Projections are Submitted & Reviewed by Each DOD Component’s Major Commands/Regions & HQ

• Component HQs Submit to DOD.

Tools for Meeting DOD Project Justification & Design Requirements• LID Center Design & Cost Criteria

http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/ • DOD United Facilities Criteria (UFC) LID Design Manual

http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/announce.htm • DOD and Service HQs EPR Guidance & Example Projects • DOD Sustainability Programs

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Sustain/sustain.html • Army Corps 1391, Economic Analysis, & Cost Estimate

Development Tools http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/paxspt/products.html

• Naval Facilities Engineering Command – Unified Facilities Criteria (Design: Low Impact Development Manual – still in Draft)

• Air Force- AFCEE http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/dc/products/dcproducts.asp

• OFEE http://www.ofee.gov/fedfacs704FINAL.pdf (Federal projects, Installation Lessons Learned etc)

• State Regulatory Office – Storm Water Management Manuals

DOD Funding Sources for LID (Site Design, Construction &

Maintenance)• Military Construction (MILCON)• Environmental (Compliance, Conservation, P2) • Operations & Maintenance (O & M) • Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation

(RDT & E)• Legacy

http://www.dodlegacy.org/legacy/index.htm • ITAM- Funds for Sustaining Military Training

Areas• Army Corps of Engineer Funding Sources• Partnerships & Grants

Maintaining Funding• Select Low Cost & Low Maintenance Design • Ensure Design Incorporates SOP for Proper

Maintenance• On a Regular Basis: Quantify, Inspect &

Document Best Business Practice Results for Funds for Future Modifications

• Program Recurring Funding for Maintenance & Documented Need for Modification

• Document Reduction of Program Requirements & Environmental Liabilities due to Low Impact Design

Contracting & Estimating Avenues

• Low Impact Development Center http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/GSA.htm

• Army Corps http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/contract/ContrOpps.asp

• GSA http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=8106&contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW

• DLA SOWs & Cost Estimate Documents http://www.dla.mil/dss/dss-a/documents.asp

• DLA Contract Site http://www.dla.mil/db/

• AFCEE http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products.asp

Installation ExamplesFort Bragg Sustainability Plan

Goals 1 and 2: Water Resources• Reduce the amount of water taken from the Little

River by 70% by 2025.• Water discharged from Fort Bragg will meet or

exceed North Carolina High Quality Water (HQW) Standards by 2025.

– Objective 2: Design/upgrade facilities to protect and enhance water quality and quantity.

Goal 4: Sustainable Design • Meet minimum platinum standard for all

construction by 2929, Renovate 25% of all existing structures to at least a bronze standard by 2020, using the Sustainable Project Rating Tool (SPiRiT) standard

– Objective 1: Develop strong organizational management system that institutionalizes sustainable design concepts

– Objective 2: Improve site selection process and development for major military construction and small construction projects

– Objective 5: Optimize Materials and Resources

Web site: www.bragg.mil/sustainability/success.htm

DOD Funding Sources for LID (Site Design, Construction &

Maintenance)• Military Construction (MILCON)• Environmental (Compliance, Conservation, P2) • Operations & Maintenance (O & M) • Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation

(RDT & E)• Legacy

http://www.dodlegacy.org/legacy/index.htm • ITAM- Funds for Sustaining Military Training

Areas• Army Corps of Engineer Funding Sources• Partnerships & Grants