Regulatory Perspective: Case for Gray and Green Infrastructure

Transcription

1 Regulatory Perspective: Case for Gray and Green Infrastructure

2 Presentation Outline Common Drivers and Regulatory Framework Benefits of green infrastructure Case studies EPA post-construction cost analysis New Approach to EPA Framework

3 Regulatory Structure for Implementation Federal Clean Water Act requirements, such as the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, must ultimately be implemented at the local level State Agencies may promote implementation via permits and /or state law Local communities may promote implementation via ordinances and codes

4 Other Drivers for Implementation Asset Management Flood Control Larger Sustainability Goals Park and Recreational Planning Water Supply Protection Groundwater Recharge TMDLs

5 Paradigm Shift: Rain is a Resource, Not a Waste Drinking water Ground water recharge Stream baseflow Trees & other plants Aesthetic qualities

6 Paradigm Shift: Trifocal Approach to Stormwater Management

7 Caveat Green Infrastructure is another option in the BMPm treatment toolkit for use in controlling Stormwater discharge related issues GI/LID projects should be applied where they can demonstrate benefits for water quality and environmental improvements They can be used in conjunction with conventional BMPs

8 Benefits by type of practice Green Roofs Trees Rain Barrels and Cisterns Have a longer lifespan than traditional roofs Reduce energy costs Buildings with green roofs can command rental premiums Vegetation provides habitat for urban wildlife Reduce water consumption and associated costs Reduce demand for potable water Increase available water supply for other uses Reduce urban heat island Provide shade in summer and block wind in winter Reduce greenhouse gases by absorbing CO2 Capture urban air pollutants (dust, O3, CO) Bioswales and Rain Gardens Permeable Pavements Green Space Reduces stormwater runoff volume Reduces peak stormwater flows Helps reduce the risk of flooding Improve property and neighborhood aesthetics Reduce localized flooding Promote infiltration and groundwater recharge Enhance pedestrian safety when used in traffic calming applications Reduce stormwater runoff Reduce standing water Promote infiltration and groundwater recharge May have lower maintenance than traditional pavements

9 Potential Benefits of Green Infrastructure (By Practice; CNT, 2010) 9

10 Green infrastructure has many benefits Green infrastructure Can be cost-effective (can be lower cost than grey infrastructure; volume reduction can reduce CSO costs) Increases energy efficiency and reduces energy costs (green roofs, street trees increase energy efficiency; retention increases aquifer storage and reduces cost of transporting water) Can reduce the economic impacts associated with flood events Protects public health and reduces illness-related costs (reduced CSO events decrease incidents of waterborne illness and shellfish closures; increased trees and plants improve air quality) Source: Banking on Green, 2012

11 Social and economic benefits of green infrastructure Increased enjoyment of surroundings Increased use of green space (Hastie 2003; Kuo 2003). Increased safety and reduced crime 7 to 8 percent of the variance in crimes (Kuo 2001) Reduce road rage, increase safety, decrease vehicle speeds (Wolf 1998; Kuo 2001). Increased sense of well-being Enhances people s sense of well-being. (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission 2004) and reduces mental fatigue (Wolf 1998). Increased property values 0.7 to 30% increase in property values

12 Green Infrastructure Can Save Money Retaining stormwater with green infrastructure practices can reduce or eliminate the need for other water infrastructure that is currently required (e.g., pipes, detention ponds) For example, developments in Maryland that can match natural conditions for the one-year storm using green infrastructure do not have to provide any additional stormwater management. This compliance option eliminates the need for the pipes and detention ponds otherwise required. Minimizing impervious surfaces and preserving existing green space reduce construction costs and decrease the total 12 amount of stormwater discharges

13 The Intrinsic Value of GI: Total Economic Value Use Value Direct Use Recreation Mobility Production Indirect Use Environmental function Health risk avoidance Living condition effects

14 The Intrinsic Value of GI: Total Economic Value (contd) Non-Use Value Investment Value Existence Job creation Support of biodiversity Land and facility value Property values Legacy Preservation for future Generations Altruistic General well being and Benefit

15 How Green Infrastructure Can Save Money Boulder Hills, NH (UNH Stormwater Center) 24-unit active adult condominium community built in 2009 Makes use of porous asphalt for road, driveways, and sidewalks The use of green infrastructure practices resulted in project costs 6% lower than conventional approaches 15

16 Boulder Hills, NH (UNH Stormwater Center) 16

17 How Green Infrastructure Can Save Money Greenland Meadows, NH(UNH Stormwater Center) Three, 1-story retail units on 56 acres (25 acres of impervious surface) built in acres of porous asphalt and gravel wetland used for stormwater management The use of green infrastructure practices were estimated to save 9% in overall project development costs 17

18 Greenland Meadows, NH (UNH Stormwater Center) 18

19 U of MD Environmental Finance Center Green Infrastructure Financing Map ( Infographics used to share financing stories from 20 communities across the country. For example, New Orleans developed a stormwater management plan that includes green infrastructure:

20 Many examples of green infrastructure ASLA case studies ( 479 case studies identified Half of the case studies were retrofits of existing properties, 31% were new developments and 19% were redevelopment projects 44% of case studies found a decrease in costs by using green infrastructure; 31% found green infrastructure did not influence costs while 25% found increased costs

21 Gap Creek Subdivision, Sherwood, AR Redesigned from conventional to LID layout Increased open space from 1.5 acres to 23.5 acres Street widths reduced from 36 to 27 ft Additional 17 lots added Lots sold for $3,000 more and cost $4,800 less to develop than comparable conventional lots For the entire development, the combination of cost savings and lot premiums resulted in an additional profit to the developer of $2.2 million EPA, 2007, Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices

22 Large cost savings by using green infrastructure for volume control GI approaches in Chicago have diverted over 70 million gallons of stormwater per year from the CSO system New York City is implementing a plan that will use GI approaches to reduce discharges to their CSO, saving $1.5 billion over 20 years. Sanitation District No. 1 in Northern Kentucky uses GI to annually reduce 12.2 million gallons to the CSO and save $800 million. Banking on Green, 2012

23 EPA Post-Construction Cost Analysis EPA conducted a study to estimate postconstruction stormwater BMP costs for a variety of project types All costs are in 2012 dollars, and presented as costs/acre All data is specific to South Carolina

24 Retention Requirement EPA assumed a retention standard of 90 th percentile rainfall event for new development, and 85 th percentile for redevelopment Retention standard is applied statewide (inside and outside of MS4s) EPA also assessed impact of reducing impervious surfaces which includes: Modest reductions to street widths and parking stall sizes EPA did not change parking ratios, address shared parking or other changes that can more significantly reduce impervious surfaces

25 Commercial project type EPA projected 10,600 commercial projects in SC from (most are redevelopment in MS4 areas) Median project size 4 acres (17 acres average) Average 42% impervious surface Most common BMPs are soil amendments (99%), downspout disconnection (69%), bioretention (64%), rain gardens (27%) and permeable pavement (26%)

26 Single Family Residential project type EPA projected 8,000 SFR projects in SC from (most are new developments outside MS4 areas) Median project size 7 acres (16 acres average) Average 18% impervious surface Most common BMPs are soil amendments (99%), downspout disconnection (86%), rain gardens (73%), and bioretention (20%)

27 Retaining stormwater can save money on new commercial developments New Development in MS4 Redevelopment in MS4 Current Regs Current Cost New Retention Standard With imp. surface reduction Without imp. surface reduction $16,100/ac - $400/ac + $3,300/ac $20,800/ac + $8,400/ac + $12,200/ac Most cost savings is from impervious surface reduction.

28 Retaining stormwater saves money for single family home developments New Development in MS4 Redevelopment in MS4 Current Regs Current Cost New Retention Standard With imp. surface reduction Without imp. surface reduction $10,100/ac - $3,500/ac - $2,300/ac $12,200/ac - $400/ac + $1,700/ac Most cost savings is from impervious surface reduction and reduced O&M costs.

29 EPA LID Relative Valuation Study

30 Use of Green and Gray Atlanta, GA (Old 4 th Ward) The original design of the project called for the construction of an underground conveyance tunnel at an estimated price tag of $40 million. The stormwater pond was constructed for about $14 million, creating a savings of approximately $26 million

31 Regulatory Strategies Refined Objective: to provide communities with tools and technical resources to implement community-based approaches for long term Stormwater based planning EPA s approach will comprise of technical support in several areas: Guidance Toolkit Technical Assistance

32 How is this different from Previous efforts? Communication platform can engage more communities than technical assistance alone Communities can realize potential cost savings and increased benefits via long-term planning Capitalizes on accumulated knowledge/resources to save time for communities New approach allows refinement

33 Guide for Voluntary Long- Term Planning Developed based on sustained engagement with key partners including states, communities, business/industry groups, academia and nongovernmental organizations Based on several key principles: Stormwater retention is critical to reducing water pollution and public health threats. Communities need a long investment horizon to adequately address existing and new sources of stormwater runoff Stormwater investments can be aligned with other municipal long-term planning elements such as capital improvement and transportation plans in a costeffective manner.

34 Toolkit Decision support tool to develop a long-term stormwater plan, users will be prompted through a series of questions to access the most relevant resources including: Existing tools Existing Documents Funding Sources Additional Features: Multimedia Resources: Video featuring the technical assistance communities Summary Presentations aimed at Managers and Elected Officials: Editable presentation to describe how a long-term stormwater plan can help them and provide an overview of the process.

35 Targeted Community Assistance Recently, EPA chose 4 communities to support EPA will work with each community to develop longterm stormwater plans using the beta version of the Toolkit Communities will pilot implementation of this approach while providing valuable feedback to improve the Toolkit prior to the public release to make it as user friendly and easy to understand as possible Results for this assistance will serve as a resource for communities nationwide.