1. 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:

2. –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

3. LID Project Objectives

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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Master Planning Process Integration into: – Site Analysis –Benefit Analysis –Site Design Selection –Plan Development

9. 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.

10. 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

11. Site Plan

12. Proposed building and parking

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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

18. Master Planning Process Green Roof

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Green Roof Costs Estimate 3 man-hr pre year per 1,000 sq ft $0.20 per square ft of impervious area annually

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

28. Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach

29. 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

30. Traditional Site Plan vs. LID Approach

31. Conventional vs. LID: Military Housing Development UFC

32. Conventional vs. LID:

33. Conventional vs. LID

34. 1391 Process

35. 1391 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

36. 1391 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

37. 1391 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

38. 1391 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

39. Funding Aspects

40. 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)

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

42. 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

43. 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

45. 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

46. Example Calculations Impervious Area (I) = 80% Volumetric runoff coefficient (Rv) = 0.77 Water quality volume = 557.5 ft 3 Minimum surface area required for bioretention DA-1 using given parameters = 465 ft 2

47. LID vs. Conventional Installation costs Cost per length of pipe per ft C = 0.54D 1.3024 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)

48. 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

49. Planning Objectives

50. 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

51. NEPA

52. 1391 Process/Completion

53. 1391 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME FACILITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT OBJECTIVES

54. 1391 PROJECT BENEFITS ENVIRONMENTAL WATER CONSERVATION ENERGY MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE AESTHETICS EDUCATION

55. 1391 LEED ISSUES (US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL) GREENING THE GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS

56. 1391 DOE EPA Regulatory Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Directive 01-1 on Stormwater