TRAINING AGENDA Planner Module – September 20, 2005 Afternoon Session: I. Planners Training Exercise Review Marie Headquarters Case Study II. Complete 1391 for Integration of LID Approach into New Construction of Stormwater System Projects:

–LID Project Objectives –Master Planning Process Integration into Site Analysis, Benefit Analysis, Site Design Selection, Plan Development Green Roof –Discuss Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach

LID Project Objectives

LID approaches and techniques for the design of the MARFORLANT headquarters facility –Feasibility –Potential effectiveness

LID Project Objectives Utilizing LID techniques and practices to meet: –Regulatory requirements –Federal government program goals Water conservation Energy conservation Environmental stewardship –Natural resource program management objectives

MARFORLANT: Master Planning Process Meet Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) stormwater management regulations. rainfall used for non-potable uses –irrigation or toilet flushing Ancillary benefits energy conservation –vegetated roof –strategic siting of vegetation.

MARFORLANT: Master Planning Process Assist in meeting the Executive Council Storm Water Directive (EC Directive 01-1) “GOVERNMENT BY EXAMPLE” Eliminate pond option by replacing the hydrologic and hydraulic functions with LID practices such as bioretention. –eliminating pond maintenance –pond vector issues.

Master Planning Process: Case Study MARFORLANT Integration into: –Site Analysis –Benefit Analysis –Site Design Selection –Plan Development

Master Planning Process: Site description 7.1 acres in size. Site slopes gently from the north and south Low point in the center of the property. mix of woods and grass The soils on site are compacted.

Master Planning Process: Proposal 55,000 sq. ft. building northern portion of site 280 parking spaces Future building planned western side of proposed facility. Conventional stormwater on western edge Woods should remain undisturbed

Master Planning Process: Hydrologic Analysis The Commonwealth of Virginia requires peak runoff post-development condition to equal or be below the discharge from the pre-development condition for: –2-year 24-hour storm (with a six-inch depth ) LID practices is three (3) percent, or 0.2 acres –10-year 24-hour storm event for urban areas LID practices is eight (8) percent, or 0.6 acres Pre-and Post-development conditions are compared to determine a storage volume

Master Planning Process: Non-potable water Secondary non-potable usage –toilet flushing, cooling, irrigation Daily water demand 4,500 gpd for 300 office workers (15 gal per person per day) Cistern size of 14 diameter and height of 37 ft to capture and reuse water.

Master Planning Process: Non-potable water

LID Site Design Requirement of 8% of the site in LID features (10 yr 24 hr storm) –Runoff will sheet flow to a centralized bioretention facility with several perimeter bioretention facilities –Permeable surfaces on walkways –Green roof

Master Planning Process Green Roof

Conditions that have spurred green roof development –Prevalence of combined sewer systems –Antiquated and over-taxed sewer and waste treatment facilities –Widespread pollution of rivers and estuaries –Frequent nuisance flooding –Limited space for instituting large management facilities

Green Roof (continued) Driving factors for Green roof at MARFORLANT facility –Mitigate water runoff impacts –Compensate for the loss of green space –Limited treatment options for site are limited due to location of low point and high water table –Increases service life of roofing system –Reducing energy cost

Layers of Green Roof Waterproofing membrane Root barrier (if the waterproofing is not certified as root resistant) Drainage layer Separation layer Growth media layer Plants

Green Roof Calculations Dead Load (PSF) = 5.75 x depth of green roof

Green Roof: Planning Calculations Conservative estimate of stormwater performance: Reduction in Annual Runoff(%) = 45 x (MWC (in.)) 1/3 Storm Magnitude Controlled (in) = 2.5 x MWC (in.) MWC = Maximum Water Capacity of green roof

Green Roof: Pollution Removal It is estimated 30% of all nitrogen and phosphorus in local streams is from roof runoff Green roof have demonstrated the removal of: –68% of total phosphorus –80% of total nitrogen

Green Roof Benefits: Energy Estimated 10% reduction in air- conditioning related energy costs Roofing system is expected to last 2-3 times longer than normal

Green Roof Costs Estimate 3 man-hr / (year - 1,000 sq ft) $0.20 per square ft of impervious area annually

Green Roof: LEED Credits Stormwater management Water efficient landscape Improved energy performance Recycled material content Local and regional material Totaling 16 credits

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:

Conventional vs. LID

Conventional vs. LID Total costs Cost per length of pipe per ft C = 0.54D for D = $14.40 (12in) D = $30.10 (24 in) C ($/ft) = (12 in) – (24 in) 1999 dollars Cost of grass swale per ft C/L = K K = 5-14 C ($/ft) = No land cost where considered, but could be significant

Cost Savings of LID Techniques Reduced downstream erosion and flood control. –preventing costly clean up and stream bank restorations. Infrastructure and development costs. –LID techniques reduces infrastructure requirements by decreasing the amount of pipes, roadways, etc, that translate to decreased development costs and maintenance costs

Cost Savings of LID Techniques Improved groundwater recharge, drinking water, and decreased treatment costs. It is almost always cheaper to keep water clean than it is to clean it up. –Trust for Public Land noted Atlanta’s tree cover has saved over $883 million by preventing the need for stormwater retention facilities. –Approximately 50 to 55 percent of the variation in treatment costs can be explained by the percent of forest cover in the source area. –For every 10 percent increase in forest cover in the source area, treatment and chemical costs decreased approximately 20 percent, up to about 60 percent forest cover

1391 Process

PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME MARFORLANT Facility FACILITY Naval Support Activity Norfolk PROJECT DESCRIPTION Determine feasibility and effectiveness of LID site design and green roof study. PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1)To improve water quality of site 2)To reduce runoff volume and peak flow rates for compliance 3)Meet FEMP objectives for water conservation and LID 4)Meet Greening Government, LEED, and other program objectives

1391 Process PROJECT 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. EDUCATION Promotes DoD awareness of environmental and water conservation activities

1391 Process LEED ISSUES (US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL) Potential for LEED credits for using natural treatment systems that treat the site’s stormwater, increase on-site infiltration, and reduce potable water requirements GREENING THE GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS Consistent with: EO13101 – Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition Reuse of stormwater EO13123 – Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management Reduction of potable water requirements; improvement of water quality; minimization of maintenance requirements EO13134 – Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy Use of recycled materials (mulch, composted leaves and organic materials) to amend and fertilize soil EO13148 – Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management Promotion of sustainability through the use of native plants

1391 Process DOE Consistent with DOE’s FEMP Sustainability Initiative and Greening Program EPA Regulatory Potential for NPDES Credits Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement Bioretention will reduce nutrient and sediment loads Capture of atmospheric deposition by green roof and bioretention Government by Example Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan Pollution Prevention State-of-the-Art Techniques Low Impact Development Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Directive 01-1 on Stormwater Develop Innovative Technologies Installation of Innovative BMP Projects Education on Innovative BMPs

Funding Aspects

Funding Joint Effort –Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Research Laboratory (NREL) –Federal Management Program (FEMP) –Atlantic Division of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (LANTDIV)

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

Section II Outline: Site Description Planning Objectives NEPA Construction Considerations & Proposal Development Maintenance 1391 Exercise

Example Site: Bioretention Example site –0.77 acre-site –Impervious area is 0.36 acres 0.16 impervious area in DA impervious area in DA-2 –Assume topography is suitable for the design –High water table is not a factor for this exercise

Planning Objectives

Development of Planning Objectives Meet specific regulatory Water quality To improve water quality of site To reduce runoff volume and peak flow rates for compliance Meet FEMP objectives for water conservation and LID Meet Greening Government, LEED, and other program objectives

Example Calculations: Parameters ParameterDescription Value PDesign Rainfall Depth1 in P(avg)Average ponding depth 0.5 ft k Minimum coefficient of permeability 0.5 ft/day dMinimum filter thickness2.5 ft tDesign drain time2 days

Sample Calculations: Bioretention Impervious Area (I) = 80% Volumetric runoff coefficient (Rv) = 0.77 Water quality volume = ft 3 Minimum surface area required for bioretention DA-1= 465 ft 2

NEPA

By incorporating LID into site design, facilities can minimize adverse affects of new development on the environment (e.g., topography, stormwater, vegetation).

Construction Considerations & Proposal Development

Need more?

Installation Cost of a Bioretention Cell ItemUnit Estimated unit cost (2005 Dollars) Excavation C.Y.$8 - $10 Bioretention media C.Y.$40 - $60 Filter fabric S.Y.$1 - $5 Gravel C.Y.$30 - $35 4” dia. perforated underdrain pipe L.F.$8 - $15 Plants Ea.$5 - $20

Cost of Different LID Methods Type of LID for half Installation Costs O&M Costs (annualized) Bioretention Cell $10,000 $925 Bioswale $10,000 $600 Tree box $19,000 $950 Sand Filter $30,000 $2,800 Rain barrel $12,500 $900 Green Roof $250,000 $11,600 * Infiltration Device $8,000 $1,125 Permeable Pavement $12,000 $950 Time of Concentration $8,000 $750 Landscaping $5,000 $575 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

Maintenance

Maintenance: Bioretention maintenance is the same as any landscaped area. Repair any eroded areas On an annual basis, perform the following tasks: –Remove accumulated sediment and debris –Replace any dead or stressed plants. –Replenish the mulch layer to maintain design depth. Choosing native plants will minimized water and maintenance

Performance and Inspections To ensure proper performance, visually inspect that stormwater is infiltrating properly into the bioretention cell. –Corrective measures include: Inspection for and removal of accumulated sediments. Backflushing the underdrain through the cleanout pipe is another option. Full or partial replacement of the bioretention media may be required to restore the flow rate through the cell. Soil amendments can first be applied in an attempt to restore permeability Inspections: –annually in spring, and –after extreme events (e.g. after hurricanes).

Example Inspection Sheet?

Example SOP ?

Create Inspection Sheet

Create SOP