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 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

Norfolk Naval Support Activity Case Study: 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.

Norfolk Naval Support Activity Case Study: 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

• Integration into:– Site Analysis–Benefit Analysis–Site Design Selection–Plan Development

Master Planning Process: Site description

• 7.1 acres in size.• The site slopes gently from the north and south

to a low point located approximately in the center of the property.

• mix of woods and grass The grass is in fair condition and some bare spots are present.

• The soils on site are compacted.• The drainage is conveyed by existing yard inlets

to a storm drain.

Master Planning Process: Proposal

• 55,000 sq. ft. building located on northern portion of site

• 280 employee parking spaces

• Future building is planned alone western side of proposed facility.

• Conventional stormwater facility shown along western edge of parking area

• Woods should remain undisturbed

Site Plan

Proposed building and parking

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 the 2-year 24-hour storm

• the 10-year 24-hour storm event for urban areas for adequate conveyance.

• Pre-and Post-development conditions are compared to determine a storage volume

• Detention method was used because the presence of compacted soils

Master Planning Process: Hydrologic Analysis

• The site area required to maintain the pre-development runoff rate for:– 2-year 24-hour storm event using LID

practices with a six-inch depth is three (3) percent, or approximately 0.2 acres

– 10-year 24-hour storm event using six-inch depth LID practices with a six-inch depth is eight (8) percent, or approximately 0.6 acres

Master Planning Process: Non-potable water

• Secondary non-potable usage (i.e. toilet flushing, cooling)

• 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.

LID Site Design

• Requirement of 8% of the site in LID features– Runoff will sheet flow to a centralized

bioretention facility with several perimeter bioretention facilities

– Permeable surfaces shown on walkways– Green roof

Master Planning Process

Green Roof

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 associated with new

development– Compensate for the loss of green space in the

memorial park– Limited treatment options for site are limited do the

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 pre year per 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

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:

Comparision of CN and Peak Discharge

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

CN Peak Discharge (CFS)2-year Storm 3” Depth

Peak Discharge (CFS)10-year Storm 5”

Depth

(CF

S)

Conventional CN

LID Design

Existing Condition

Conventional vs. LID

Volume Comparision

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Volume (Depth in Inches) 2-YearStorm Event

Volume (Depth in Inches) 10-Year Storm Event

Vo

lum

e (d

epth

in) Conventional CN

LID Design

Existing Condition

1391 Process

1391PROJECT 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

1391PROJECT 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

1391LEED 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 AcquisitionReuse of stormwaterEO13123 – Greening the Government through Efficient Energy ManagementReduction of potable water requirements; improvement of water quality; minimization of maintenance requirementsEO13134 – Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and BioenergyUse of recycled materials (mulch, composted leaves and organic materials) to amend and fertilize soilEO13148 – Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental ManagementPromotion of sustainability through the use of native plants

1391DOE 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 loadsCapture of atmospheric deposition by green roof and bioretentionGovernment by Example

Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan

Pollution Prevention State-of-the-Art TechniquesLow Impact Development

Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Directive 01-1 on Stormwater

Develop Innovative TechnologiesInstallation of Innovative BMP ProjectsEducation 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

• Planners– Funding Aspects– Development of Planning Objectives, NEPA &

Performance Indicators– 1391 Process/Completion

• Engineers – Project Design– Construction Considerations & Proposal Development

• Facilities Maintenance– Site Monitoring, Inspection & Tracking

• Pre & Post Construction– Maintenance SOP & Implementation

• Operation• Landscape

Example: Bioretention

• Example site– 0.77 acre-site– Impervious area is 0.36 acres

• 0.16 impervious area in DA-1• 0.20 impervious area in DA-2

– Assume topography is suitable for the design– High water table is not a factor for this

exercise

Parameters

Parameter Description Value

P Design Rainfall Depth 1 in

P(avg) Average ponding depth 0.5 ft

k Minimum coefficient of permeability

0.5 ft/day

d Minimum filter thickness 2.5 ft

t Design drain time 2 days

Example Calculations

• Impervious Area (I) = 80%

• Volumetric runoff coefficient (Rv) = 0.77

• Water quality volume = 557.5 ft3

• Minimum surface area required for bioretention DA-1 using given parameters

= 465 ft2

LID vs. Conventional Installation costs

Cost per length of pipe per ft

C = 0.54D1.3024

for D = $14.40 (12in) D = $30.10 (24 in)

C ($/ft) = 14.45 (12 in) – 37.77 (24 in)

1999 dollars

Cost of grass swale per ft

C/L = K

K = 5-14

C ($/ft) = 5 - 14

No land cost where considered, but could be significant

EPA-600/R-02/021 (Cost of Urban Stormwater Control)

Cost of Different LID MethodsType 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

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

NEPA

1391 Process/Completion

1391PROJECT SUMMARY

PROJECT NAME

FACILITY

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1391PROJECT BENEFITS

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER CONSERVATION

ENERGY MANAGEMENT

MAINTENANCE

AESTHETICS

EDUCATION

1391LEED ISSUES (US

GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL)

GREENING THE GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS

1391DOE

EPA Regulatory

Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement

Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan

Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Directive 01-1 on Stormwater