1 / 37

Scope of Work

KEEP IT CLEAN PARTNERSHIP Low Impact Development (LID) Checklist & Barriers Analysis Andrew Earles, Jane Clary, and Derek Rapp Wright Water Engineers, Inc. & Janice Lopitz, Keep it Clean Partnership. Scope of Work. Questionnaire/ barrier identification Develop Review Checklist

lesley-zimmerman
Télécharger la présentation

Scope of Work

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KEEP IT CLEAN PARTNERSHIPLow Impact Development (LID) Checklist & Barriers AnalysisAndrew Earles, Jane Clary, and Derek RappWright Water Engineers, Inc.&Janice Lopitz, Keep it Clean Partnership

  2. Scope of Work • Questionnaire/ barrier identification • Develop Review Checklist • Development Plan Review • Report/White Paper • Timeframe: March – December 2008

  3. Types of LID Barriers • Physical • Institutional • Barriers for municipalities • Barriers for engineers • Barriers for the public

  4. “Laundry List” of LID Barriers • Fear of liability (engineers, owners, reviewers approving design) • Reluctance to try something new/lack of demonstration projects • Lack of education and training • Lack of common nomenclature (rain garden versus porous landscape detention)

  5. “Laundry List” of LID Barriers (Cont.) • Limited design examples/good technical documentation • Costs—design, construction, operation and maintenance, life cycle • Safety concerns • Public perception

  6. “Laundry List” of LID Barriers (Cont.) • LID not integrated early in planning process • Guidance versus requirements • Compatibility with existing developments • Water rights (cisterns/rainwater harvesting)

  7. “Laundry List” of LID Barriers (Cont.) • Potential for mixed messages from government (different departments) • No clear economic incentive for using LID • Difficulty in measuring benefits of LID • Semi-arid area hydrology

  8. “Laundry List” of LID Barriers (Cont.) • Maintenance and durability • Long term ownership • Standing water “nuisance” problems • Fear of lengthening review process

  9. “Laundry List” of LID Barriers (Cont.) • Conflicts with municipal code requirements • American Disabilities Act considerations • Poorly drained soils • High groundwater table

  10. “Laundry List” of LID Barriers (Cont.) • Expansive soils & construction defect lawsuits • Other water quality alternatives are “easier” • LID does not altogether eliminate need for other types of BMPs and drainage infrastructure • HOA or covenant restrictions

  11. “Laundry List” of LID Barriers (Cont.) • Different guidance/criteria from different groups (CWP versus UDFCD versus others) • Examples of LID failures • Conflicts with landscaping requirements

  12. Questionnaire Results (33 Responses)

  13. Questionnaire Results (33 Responses)

  14. Results (33 Responses)

  15. Results (33 Responses)

  16. Results (33 Responses)

  17. Results (33 Responses)

  18. Results (33 Responses)

  19. Results (33 Responses)

  20. Development Reviews 3 Sites selected: • Boulder—Redevelopment Project—Boulder Manor • Longmont—”Big Box” Commercial Development—Sandstone Marketplace • Erie—Residential Development—Redtail Ranch

  21. Development Reviews (Cont.) • Level of Detail • “Big Picture” • Identify general LID measures that could potentially have been implemented • Phone interviews with engineers, owners (if available to participate) and local reviewers • Review focused on overall site plan (grading and drainage sheets) • Assume hydrology/ calculations are correct • Overall goal: Identify LID measures feasible for site and, if not incorporated in design, why not

  22. BOULDER MOBILE MANOR

  23. SANSDTONE MARKETPLACE

  24. REDTAIL RANCH

  25. White Paper • Present LID checklist • Provide summary of each development review case • Identify most common LID barriers • Develop conceptual strategies for addressing/overcoming most common barriers to LID implementation • How will white paper be used by KICP? • Public education for developers, municipal staff • Basis to seek additional funding for further study of strategies to overcome barriers • Publication in scientific/engineering literature

  26. Current Opportunities

  27. CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO BARRIERS

  28. CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO BARRIERS

  29. CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO BARRIERS

  30. CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO BARRIERS

  31. CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO BARRIERS

  32. Regional Opportunities Related to LID • UDFCD Volume 3 BMP Manual Update • Model LID chapter • Emphasis on managing stormwater at the source and volume reduction • Expanded BMPs • Comment meeting Sept 25 at UDFCD

  33. Other Local Resources:Denver Water Quality Management PlanBMP Implementation Guidelines

  34. National LID Opportunities • International Stormwater BMP Database Expansion (www.bmpdatabase.org) • Reclassification of LID studies (fall 2008) • Better inclusion of LID • Update of Monitoring Manual to include LID (fall 2008)

  35. Representative LID studies already included: • Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Urbonas) • University of New Hampshire Studies (Ballestero/Roseen/Leonard/Houle) • Villanova Urban Stormwater Partnership (Traver) • North Carolina State (Hunt) • Portland, OR (Liptan)

  36. New GreenCO BMP Manual • Contains 39 BMPs to: • reduce landscape water use • protect water quality • promote sustainable landscaping • New additions include “Role of Landscaping in Low Impact Development” • Now available on CD/hard copy (by download in the near future) • Contacts: Jane Clary, WWE Brenda O’Brien, GreenCO

  37. Questions? • On KICP project: • Andrew Earles, WWE (aearles@wrightwater.com) • Janice Lopitz, City of Boulder • BMP Database project: • Jane Clary, WWE (clary@wrightwater.com) • UDFCD Volume 3 Update: • Michelle Delaria or Ken Mackenzie, UDFCD • (mdelaria@udfcd.org or kam@udfcd.org)

More Related