Density as a Best Management Practice (BMP)

4 06 2010

High Point Neighborhood mentioned in Ped Shed Post
photo credit: sitephocus.com

The Ped Shed, a blog focused on walkable urban design and sustainable placemaking by Laurence “L.J.” Aurbach, recently had a post about density as a best management practice (BMP). The post provides a good outline of the evolution of the stormwater regulatory environment. The main point of the post is that well intentioned stormwater regulations make it difficult to build dense walkable environments that ultimately exacerbate stormwater management issues.

The author states:

“But the universal and inflexible application of BMPs and LID can have significantly negative consequences on the quality of urban places and the health of watersheds. LID purports to encourage smart growth and urban redevelopment, but as a rule this support is nominal, little more than lip service. In general practice, LID puts urban density at a competitive disadvantage.”

He cites three studies, two by the EPA (Protecting Water Resources with Higher-Density Development, Using Smart Growth Techniques as Stormwater Best Management Practices) and one by Jacob and Lopez (Is Denser Greener? An evaluation of higher density development as an urban stormwater quality best management practice.) All of them provide compelling data as to the benefits of density with regard to stormwater run-off and pollutant loads, and are well worth reading.

I agree with him that when developing an urban vs suburban site, more expensive stormwater BMPs are typically utilized (i.e. underground detention, green roofs) to meet stormwater regulations.

However, site area, property costs, and market dynamics are a large factor in determining appropriate BMPs and cost effective solutions. If you can build significantly more square footage due to a better market environment and/or need to maximize your investment in land cost (which often reflects the market potential and property entitlements) then the cost of best management practices that maximize these potentials can be offset.

The examples of offsite mitigation are very intriguing. I wholeheartly agree that opportunities for this on properties in close proximity to the development is an effective way to mitigate stormwater impacts while spreading (and hopefuly lowering) the cost across multiple properties. In regard to infill developement, this can be very difficult in practices but not impossible. Public space can be designed to accommodate the needs of neighboring properties. Using green roofs, pervious pavements, and other BMPs on surrounding properties can greatly reduce the volume of runoff being diverted to these offsite areas and therefore their size  can be diminished to a point that can be integrated better into urban environments.

-Brian Phelps


Comments : Comments Off on Density as a Best Management Practice (BMP)
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Sustainable Site Strategies, Urban Planning & Design

BLUE is the New Green

16 04 2010

I think I may have heard the term “blue roof” before last Saturday, but I must not have paid attention.  I was fascinated as I read New York City’s NYC Stormwater Sustainability Report 2008. It included a full description of a blue roof as an LID measure.   I checked out  few other leads to find this LID technique also being explored in Washington state and a recent article in EDC Magazine discussing it as well.

Bottom line:  a blue roof detains water on the roof of a structure in order to reduce the stormwater impacts.  The detention is done through a  flow restriction device around the roof drain which slowly releases the water or, in the Washington modeling, all of the rainwater on the rooftop is collected and stored.  The roof-harvested water can used to fill a water cistern for irrigation, a site infiltration system like a bioswale or rain garden or discharged slowly to the storm system.

The blue roof is best suited to a large flat roof in more urban areas with limited availability of ground level detention.  There are also designs which provide wide “gutters” near the perimeter of the roof to concentrate the water roof load where it can be supported structurally.  If the primary goal is stormwater reduction, then a blue roof can achieve that goal at considerably less cost than a vegetated green roof.  The estimates I found ranged from $1/s.f. to $4/s.f. for a blue roof while estimates for an extensive green roof might be $18-25/s.f.   Blue roofs also don’t have the same maintenance costs of green roof either – they basically require the same maintenance as a conventional roof..

Of course, the blue roof doesn’t provide the multi-benefit that green roofs do (such as energy use reduction, habitat, aesthetic, life cycle roof cost), but 2008 modeling conducted by Douglas Beyerlein, PE, Clear Creek Solutions in Mill Creek Washington does show the blue roof slightly outperforming the green roof for stormwater reduction.

-Kim Hawkins


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Sustainable Site Strategies

Eco-roofs in Portland: Creating Habitat [VIDEO]

2 04 2010

Screenshot of KGW News Story

I came across this news segment from KGW News in Portland regarding the City’s eco-roof initiative and the recent visit by Dusty Gedge, president of the European Federation of Green-roof Associations. In addition to many of the other benefits of green roofs, the city is also promoting the creation of eco-roofs to establish habitat for dry riverbed species in particularly the diverse species of birds that migrate through the city. I couldn’t embed the video but here is a link to it and the transcript.  Tom Liptan, an Environmental Specialist with Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services, summed it up well by saying.

“The benefit of an eco-roof is that it provides habitat for various species that are losing that kind of habitat in most urban environments around the world.”

-Brian Phelps



Comments : Comments Off on Eco-roofs in Portland: Creating Habitat [VIDEO]
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Green roof

Zoning and Pervious Pavement

19 03 2010

This month, the topic of APA’s Planning Advisory Service’s column, “You Asked, We Answered”, is how zoning codes across the country are handling pervious pavement for parking and sidewalks. The links to the various zoning codes were very useful. The following are excerpts from some of the more interesting ones.

ASHEVILLE, NC

“Porous paving blocks and pervious paving materials are permitted and encouraged as material for parking lots. The use of grass as a parking lot surface is permitted for overflow and intermittent parking. Pervious paving systems are required for parking spaces which exceed the maximum number of spaces required by subsection 7-11-2(c). The use of grass or other vegetation as a parking surface is permitted only for parking spaces which are provided in excess of the maximum number of parking spaces required by subsection 7-11-2(c) or used for intermittent or overflow parking. Parking lots associated with arenas, sporting facilities, amphitheaters, fairgrounds, and religious institutions may, however, use grass or other vegetation for the entire parking lot.”

DOUGLAS COUNTY, MN

Impervious Surface Replacement. Existing properties exceeding the standards for impervious surface coverage present a distinct management challenge from that of newly developed properties and there is a need to establish clear and consistent guidelines for how re-development of these lots may occur.

1. The applicant removes existing impervious surfaces at a ratio of one and one-half (1.5) square feet removed for every one (1) square foot added and restores these areas to a permeable surface…

…a. Permeable pavement systems are encouraged in the management of sites currently over the impervious surface limit and shall be credited as twenty-five (25) percent pervious for these sites when installed according to the requirements of

Section V.L.4.a.(2.)(d.)iii. Applicants are encouraged to replace existing impervious surfaces with natural vegetation at the 1.5 to 1 ratio listed above, however, permeable pavement systems may also be used. In these cases they are to replace existing impervious surfaces at a ratio of at least four (4) square feet converted for every one (1) square foot of new impervious surface being added;

2. The applicant removes existing impervious surfaces at a 1:1 ratio and restores those areas to a permeable surface and in addition, submits a comprehensive stormwater management plan that emphasized infiltration and onsite retention of stormwater for at least the two year 24-hour storm event through a combination of methods including buffer strips, swales, rainwater gardens, permeable pavement systems and other low impact development methods. The stormwater management plan must be designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect and installed as designed by a qualified professional.

a. Permeable pavement systems may be considered as 100% pervious when submitted as part of a stormwater management plan consistent with this section…

FT. WAYNE, IN

If construction techniques such as pervious pavement, block and concrete modular pavers, and grid pavers are used for off-street parking surfaces, each space provided as a result may serve in lieu of two (2) required off-street parking spaces, up to a maximum of 10% of the number of required spaces…

…Paving and drainage. All land which is placed in use for off-street parking and all driveways serving parking, delivery, and loading areas, shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or other approved all-weather hard surface, including construction techniques such as pervious pavement; block, concrete, and similar modular pavers, and grid pavers; and shall be drained with materials and in a manner which meets the current minimum standards and specifications for parking areas adopted by the Board.

-Brian Phelps



Comments : Comments Off on Zoning and Pervious Pavement
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Pervious Pavement

Ecological Importance of Southeastern Rivers

10 03 2010

Interpretive signs for an upcoming project near the Harpeth River in Williamson County will highlight the ecological significance of the waters of the southeastern United States. If you didn’t know, the rivers and streams of middle Tennessee are part of the most unique and diverse freshwater ecosystem in the entire world. This has to do with a couple things, namely the temperate climate combined with the fact that much of the area was unglaciated, or it as been more geologically stable than other parts of the U.S.

Just to give you an idea the area is home to more than 250 species of crayfish (70% of all the species in the entire U.S.), more than 300 species of mussels (over 1/3 of these live in Tennessee), and more than half the freshwater fish species in the U.S. Because of this great diversity, Tennessee has more freshwater fish that are at-risk than any other state. These species are at-risk largely due to pressures from development practices, which allow sediments and pollutants to wash into our rivers and streams. This and other topics concerning protection of critical watersheds can be found in, Rivers of Life or States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity, just some of the publications found on the NatureServe’s website.

Graphic from 'Rivers of Life', published by NatureServe

As mentioned in an earlier post, the implementation of ‘green street’ practices on Deaderick Street in downtown Nashville will divert approximately 1.2 million gallons of stormwater a year from the Cumberland River. This is water that would have otherwise run unabated into the river carrying all of the pollutants and sediments from the street. Understanding the significance of the region’s biodiversity is a good reminder of what we are trying to protect when implementing green infrastructure planning and strategies –and why this is especially important here in the Southeast and Middle Tennessee.

-Sara Putney


Comments : Comments Off on Ecological Importance of Southeastern Rivers
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Green Street, Parks & Open Space, Plans and studies, Uncategorized, water issues

Rainwater Harvesting Commercial

26 02 2010

I know this video has been out a while (since 2007). I recently ran across it again on Youtube and thought it would be worth sharing. The video is a 90-second public service commercial that promotes urban rainwater harvesting in India. It was created for/or by  The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a public interest research and advocacy organisation based in New Delhi. It is a simple but powerful message. Enjoy.

-Brian Phelps


Comments : Comments Off on Rainwater Harvesting Commercial
Tags: , ,
Categories : Sustainable Site Strategies, Water Harvesting

Water and the Southeast False Creek Olympic Village

22 02 2010

Cover of Water + Building Landscape (Chapter 6)
from The Challenge Series Website

Staying with the Olympic theme from last week’s post on the Vancouver Convention Centre, the Southeast False Creek Olympic Village is another spectacular example of sustainable building in Vancouver. The Olympic Village will house the athletes throughout the games. Afterward, it will become the home of over 16,000 residents. The following is a link to the diversity of uses that will be or are already included in the development.

A website called “The Challenge Series” has been set up to help educate the public about the Olympic Village’s sustainable features. A well-designed booklet describing the sustainable features of the development is available on the site in pdf format. One that particularly caught my attention was the Water + Building Landscape section (See Cover Above). It explains many sustainable water strategies employed throughout. Some highlights include:

  • The design team recognized the size was not large enough to handle all of the stormwater in the constructed wetland incorporated into Hinge Park. As a result, the team prioritized the water into a two-tier system. The first tier was considered the “cleaner” water that came from the rooftops and podium sections of the building. This water was directed to the cisterns in the basements of each building. The water was then used to flush toilets, supply water features, or irrigate the landscape. Additional water overflowed the cisterns and entered the South False Creek. The second tier included “dirtier” water. This water came from the roadways and other areas. The water from these areas was directed into the constructed wetland or underground gravel/sand infiltration cells.
  • The development reduced potable water use by 40 percent.
  • The site plan incorporates a number of water features that utilize the water collected on the site. The circulation through the water features provides a means of making what would otherwise be invisible visible, while at the same time improving the quality of the water.
  • 287,000 s.f. of green roof covers the development. The roofs include both extensive and intensive green roofs. This was in part because the City of Vancouver mandated that 50% of the roofs be green roofs.
  • The City also mandated the inclusion of urban agriculture at a rate of 24sf for 30% of the units whose balconies were less than 100sf.

The development has received LEED-ND Platinum certification. I look forward to seeing it one day when I return to Vancouver. There have been a number of articles on the development, but I highly recommend reading the information found on The Challenge Series website.

-Brian Phelps


Comments : Comments Off on Water and the Southeast False Creek Olympic Village
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Green roof, Green Street, LEED, Sustainable Site Strategies, Urban Planning & Design, Water Harvesting

Olympic Sized Green Roof

17 02 2010

Courtesy Vancouver Convention Centre website

The winter Olympics just kicked off with the opening ceremonies from BC Place Stadium in Vancouver. But serving as the International Broadcasting hub for the games is the Vancouver Convention Centre — the world’s first LEED Canada Platinum rated convention building. The 1.2 million SF center boasts a 6-acre green roof, which also now makes it the largest green roof in North America.

The roof is planted with over 400,000 native plants and collects rainwater for irrigation which contributes to the buildings stormwater credits as well. Other interesting sustainable features include marine and shoreline habitat restoration. Fish habitat was actually built into the buildings foundations. The building also uses seawater for heating and cooling and incorporates on-site water treatment.

The following video “Vancouver’s 6 Acre Living Green Roof”, posted on You Tube gives a great sense of the scale and context of the green roof. The landscape architect who worked on the project, Bruce Hemstock, discusses the plants used, soil media and the idea behind habitat linking into urban centers that is beginning to be made possible with the inclusion of more green roof in our cities. Interestingly enough he says one of the biggest challenges of the project was initially convincing people that it was the right thing to do.


Comments : Comments Off on Olympic Sized Green Roof
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Green roof, LEED, Sustainable Site Strategies, Water Harvesting

Interview with Dr. Allen P. Davis, P.E. Part 2 of 2

15 02 2010

Bioretention at Mercury View Lofts Parking. Nashville, TN
Source: Hawkins Partners, Inc. ©2010

The following is the second part of my email interview with Dr. Allen P. Davis, P.E. the Director of the Maryland Water Resource Research Center at the University of Maryland. Dr. Davis is a leading researcher on bioretention and has published numerous studies quantifying the benefits of its use in urbanized watersheds and low impact development (LID) concepts. In 1993, he received the National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award.

Green Infrastructure Digest: One of the many benefits of bioretention is that it addresses quality of the run-off. How effective are bioretention areas at removing common pollutants (i.e. suspended solids, metals, pathogens, thermal heat gain) and to what extent?

Dr. Allen P. Davis: Bioretention, as with most stormwater practices, addresses water quality through both volume management and pollutant treatment. So first, it is important to reduce runoff volume, which will have an overall beneficial impact on all respective pollutant loads. On the treatment side, we have significant data showing excellent removal of suspended solids and metals. Solids are effectively filtered by the bioretention media. Metals are captured with solids, as some are particulate bound. Also, bioretention media has a significant capacity for metals adsorption. Hydrocarbons are adsorbed and we have data indicating that they are readily biodegraded. Research by us and others have shown some removal of pathogens, although pathogen concentrations in runoff vary by many orders of magnitude throughout the year, making quantification difficult. Dr. Bill Hunt at North Carolina State has shown some thermal mitigation through bioretention media.

As mentioned above, removal of nitrogen and phosphorus is found, but this is highly variable from site to site and is media dependent. Very low concentrations of phosphorus are targeted for water quality protection. The performance of bioretention for phosphorus will depend on the source and characteristics of the soil used for the bioretention media. Some soils will have relatively high native concentrations of phosphorus. These media will perform poorly and may even export the excess nutrient.

Bioretention is probably least effective for nitrate and chloride, both anions. Some nitrate may be taken up by a thick stand of vegetation. In snowy areas, chlorides, as deicing agents, may be applied to roadways and parking lots at very high levels. Chlorides are minimally held by bioretention media and will pass through, though not immediately, to surface and ground waters.

GrID: When designing bioretention facilities, what factors have the most impact on their success (i.e. soils, soil depths, slope, plant material, infiltration rates)? Why?

Dr. Davis: First, the answer to this question depends on how you define success. We are trying to come up with a good set of performance metrics to define success. Is it to replicate the hydrology, water quality, and habitat of a pre-existing forested area? If so, the bar is set very (unrealistically?) high. I don’t think we’ll be able to completely replicate the forested watershed. Hydrologically, we can attempt to manage volumes and flow rates, and couple these with groundwater and baseflow recharge. We can exploit various physical, chemical, and biological processes for water quality improvement.

That said, what we are finding is that design and site factors have different impacts on different performance metrics. For volume and flow management, bigger is better (deeper media, greater surface area), and greater infiltrating surrounding soils will always help. Capture of metals, suspended solids, and some toxic organics varies little with design parameters. They are readily filtered and adsorbed on the surface of the media. Nutrients have very complex fate pathways. We haven’t gotten a full handle on these pollutants and it appears that most of your listed design and site parameters will affect their removal.

GrID: What do you see as the future of green infrastructure?

Dr. Davis: We’re still working against a lot of inertia. As we continue to install, understand, and learn, green infrastructure will become more prevalent. We continue to need more demonstrations, more performance data. Each implementation will make the next one easier. Regulations and codes need to be updated to allow the inclusion of novel technologies, where we have the science to back it up. As alluded to above, we must understand the fundamentals of how these various green technologies perform. They are not “black boxes” that we can stick a performance number on. Each is a complex combination of an engineered and natural system. We will continue to take advantage of their capabilities, but also look for design and operational modifications to improve performances. We should be able to tailor specific designs and design characteristics to the specific needs of a watershed.

Part 1

-Brian Phelps


Comments : Comments Off on Interview with Dr. Allen P. Davis, P.E. Part 2 of 2
Tags:
Categories : Bioretention, Sustainable Site Strategies

Interview with Dr. Allen P. Davis, P.E. Part 1 of 2

12 02 2010

Bioretention Diagram
Source: Hawkins Partners, Inc. ©2010

The following is an email interview with Dr. Allen P. Davis, P.E. the Director of the Maryland Water Resource Research Center at the University of Maryland. Dr. Davis is a leading researcher on bioretention and has published numerous studies quantifying the benefits of its use in urbanized watersheds and low impact development (LID) concepts. In 1993, he received the National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award.

Green Infrastructure Digest (GrID): Over the last 20 years, you and your department have been instrumental in building the current body of knowledge regarding the design and effectiveness of bioretention systems to address stormwater run-off in urban areas. In regard to your current stormwater research, what issues are you and your department studying? Beyond your current projects, what are the issues that you think need to be studied in the coming years?

Dr. Allen P. Davis: While we find bioretention to be effective in the management of urban runoff, we still have many unanswered questions and opportunities for improvement. First, we need to be able to quantify performance results. Bioretention systems are all not the same, we should not expect each of them to perform identically, and our (and others) research show that they don’t. Bioretention performance will depend upon the characteristics of the contributing watershed and surrounding soils/hydrogeology, surface area, media depth, placement of underdrains, media characteristics, flow patterns, vegetation, and other factors. As we better understand the fundamentals of bioretention, we can better predict the effects of these parameters, leading to better designs and more effective watershed management.

Additionally, we are interested in improving the performance of bioretention in removing nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. These nutrients are the pollutants of primary concern for many water bodies, certainly for us in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Bioretention performance for these nutrients is marginal and modifications to standard designs are being investigated to improve N and P removal.

The list for research topics is very long: what are the fates of captured pollutants? what is the role of biological processes (hydrocarbon degradation, plant uptake, nitrification/denitrification)? what are the best vegetation and vegetation management practices?

GriD: Over the past few years, green stormwater infrastructure has increasingly been employed within various Cities’ stormwater overflow control plans. As you know, bioretention is one of the dominant tools within the green infrastructure toolbox. Are bioretention facilities an effective tool for reducing stormwater run-off particularly in CSO events within our urbanized areas? If so, what impact has your research or others been able to demonstrate? If not, why?

Dr. Davis: Bioretention clearly can play a role in stormwater volume reduction. The larger the bioretention facility, the greater the reduction. CSOs present a greater challenge than suburban bioretention because of the lack of available land in cities. Some creative thinking can help to improve infiltration and storage in highly urbanized areas, but this is a major challenge. Some cities are looking to expand green space, even through opening up vacant lots for stormwater management. This can be helpful, but must be done on a large scale to show meaningful results.

Part 2-Monday

-Brian Phelps


Comments : Comments Off on Interview with Dr. Allen P. Davis, P.E. Part 1 of 2
Tags: , ,
Categories : Bioretention, Sustainable Site Strategies

« Previous Entries Next Entries »