easygrants id: 39467 national fish and wildlife foundation ... · complex; (4) considered...
TRANSCRIPT
Easygrants ID: 39467 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF Project ID: 1401.13.039467
LI Sound Futures Fund 2013 - Planning All Types and Water Quality Monitoring - Submit Final Programmatic Report (New
Metrics)
Grantee Organization: National Wildlife Federation
Project Title: Overcoming Barriers to Green Infrastructure Adoption (NY)
Project Period 1/01/2014 - 2/28/2015
Project Location
Description
(from Proposal)
Huntington/Northport Harbor Complex (Town of Huntington and Villages of Northport, Asharoken,
and Huntington Bay).
Project
Summary (from
Proposal)
Use a collaborative planning process to identify and overcome barriers to the adoption of green
infrastructure to reduce stormwater pollution into Northport/Huntington Harbor Complex.
Summary of
Accomplishments This project set out to fully understand why, in light of existing information and materials on
the benefits and ways to incentivize and regulate the use of green infrastructure, the
communities of the Northport/Huntington Harbor Complex are not integrating low impact
development into land use planning activities. By conducting this project, we have achieved
this primary objective by accomplishing the following: (1) provided a means to convene the
Harbor Complex communities in a collaborative planning effort through workshops; (2)
addressed and identified true barriers to broad-scale adoption of green infrastructure in Long
Island; (3) developed a Green Infrastructure Action Agenda targeted for audiences within the
Complex; (4) considered modifications to codes, ordinances, and land use policies to
encourage LID techniques as outlined in the Green Infrastructure Action Agenda; and (5)
recommended a set of municipally–owned sites that are best-suited to serve as green
infrastructure demonstration projects. By achieving these accomplishments, we have begun to
catalyze the broader adoption of green infrastructure on Long Island.
Lessons Learned As a brief summary, we had several areas of lessons learned during this project which NWF
and CCE detail in the attached report narrative. These included: assumptions about perceived
knowledge of green infrastructure; structuring workshops to be more participatory; extending
the project to be more inclusive of the members of the community; providing incentives to
participants; the need for the need for more representation from individual municipalities in
inter-municipal agreements and inter-municipal councils; the value of connectivity as one
municipality’s problem is also another municipality’s problem; the challenges municipalities
face securing funding for green infrastructure; and also weather being a factor in our ability to
schedule meetings and for maximum attendance—it was a cold, snowy winter in NYC and
inclement weather was more of a challenge than we had anticipated.
Activities and Outcomes
Funding Strategy: Capacity, Outreach, Incentives
Activity / Outcome: LISFF - Outreach/ Education/ Technical Assistance - # gov’t entities participating
Description: Enter the number of municipalities or local governments participating in the project
Required: Recommended
Notes: Northport/Huntington Harbor complex, including the Town of Huntington, Villages of Asharoken,
Huntington Bay and Northport and the Suffolk County Planning Commission.
Funding Strategy: Capacity, Outreach, Incentives
Activity / Outcome: LISFF - Outreach/ Education/ Technical Assistance - # people reached
Description: Enter the number of people reached by outreach, training, or technical assistance activities
Required: Recommended
Notes: We will reach 60 people directly; 30 through in-person workshops, and another 30 for plan review and
feedback. In addition, CCE has 20,000 email members that will recieve the project results and NWF’s action
alerts reach over 20,000 members in NY.
Funding Strategy: Capacity, Outreach, Incentives
Activity / Outcome: LISFF - Outreach/ Education/ Technical Assistance - # people targeted
Description: Enter the number of people targeted by outreach, training, or technical assistance activities
Required: Recommended
Notes: This includes 30 workshop participants and another 20 people we will involve in the development of the
strategy document.
Funding Strategy: Capacity, Outreach, Incentives
Activity / Outcome: LISFF - Outreach/ Education/ Technical Assistance - # people with knowledge
Description: Enter the number of people demonstrating a minimum level of knowledge, attitudes, or skills
Required: Recommended
Notes: This includes 30 workshop participants and another 20 people we will involve in the development of the
strategy document.
Funding Strategy: Capacity, Outreach, Incentives
Activity / Outcome: LISFF - Outreach/ Education/ Technical Assistance - # workshops, webinars, meetings
Description: Enter the number of workshops, webinars, and meetings held to address project activity
Required: Recommended
# gov't entities participating - Current: 0.00
# gov't entities participating - Grant Completion: 5.00
# people reached - Current: 0.00
# people reached - Grant Completion: 40060
# people targeted - Current: 0.00
# people targeted - Grant Completion: 70
# people with knowledge - Current: 0.0
# people with knowledge - Grant Completion: 70
# workshops, webinars, meetings - Current: 0.00
# workshops, webinars, meetings - Grant Completion: 3.00
Notes: We will have formal two day meetings and one public meeting. There will be additional phone or in-
person meetings throughout the project as needed.
Funding Strategy: Planning, Research, Monitoring
Activity / Outcome: LISFF - Management or Governance Planning - # plans developed
Description: Enter the number of plans developed that had input from multiple stakeholders
Required: Recommended
Notes:
# plans developed - Current: 0.00
# plans developed - Grant Completion: 1.00
The following pages contain the uploaded documents, in the order shown below, as provided by the grantee:
Other Documents
Other Documents
Photos - Jpeg
Photos - Jpeg
Photos - Jpeg
Other Documents
Other Documents
Other Documents
Other Documents
Other Documents
Final Report Narrative - Standard
The following uploads do not have the same headers and footers as the previous sections of this document in order to
preserve the integrity of the actual files uploaded.
Final Programmatic Report Narrative
Instructions: Save this document on your computer and complete the narrative in the format provided. The final
narrative should not exceed ten (10) pages; do not delete the text provided below. Once complete, upload this document
into the on-line final programmatic report task as instructed.
1. Summary of Accomplishments
In four to five sentences, provide a brief summary of the project’s key accomplishments and outcomes that were observed
or measured.
This project set out to fully understand why, in light of existing information and materials on the benefits and ways to
incentivize and regulate the use of green infrastructure, the communities of the Northport/Huntington Harbor Complex are
not integrating low impact development into land use planning activities. By conducting this project, we have achieved
this primary objective by accomplishing the following: (1) provided a means to convene the Harbor Complex
communities in a collaborative planning effort through workshops; (2) addressed and identified true barriers to broad-
scale adoption of green infrastructure in Long Island; (3) developed a Green Infrastructure Action Agenda targeted for
audiences within the Complex; (4) considered modifications to codes, ordinances, and land use policies to encourage LID
techniques as outlined in the Green Infrastructure Action Agenda; and (5) recommended a set of municipally–owned sites
that are best-suited to serve as green infrastructure demonstration projects. By achieving these accomplishments, we have
begun to catalyze the broader adoption of green infrastructure on Long Island.
2. Project Activities & Outcomes
Activities
Describe and quantify (using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement) the primary
activities conducted during this grant.
Activity 1: Convene project team and establish regular check-in calls/meetings.
Observed: Project team was convened and regular check-in calls/meetings were held on a weekly basis.
Activity 2: Design survey questions and conduct pre-interviews with Suffolk County Planning Department
and/or Planning Commissioners.
Observed: Survey questions were designed and provided to the members of the Suffolk County Planning
Commission and/or Planning Commissioners as part of pre-interviews before the first workshop. Questions
were designed to gather first-hand information from local and county planning commission members,
municipal leaders, and highway leaders on what they perceived to be the barriers to green infrastructure
implementation, current green infrastructure projects, local codes and ordinances, and potential demonstration
sites.
Activity 3: Conduct survey.
Observed: Survey questions were provided to a total of 14 individuals representing the town of Huntington
and villages of Northport, Ashroken, Huntington Bay, as well as Suffolk County.
Activity 4: Analyze and compile survey results.
Observed: Survey responses were compiled into an excel matrix. All responses were input per question and
organized via towns/village and municipality. Please see attached results.
Activity 5: Work with facilitator to use survey results to develop workshop agenda.
Observed: All partners worked with the project facilitator to use the survey results to inform our formulation
of the first workshop’s agenda. Results were also used to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats that communities are facing with regard to the broad-scale adoption of green infrastructure.
Activity 6: Assemble attendee list, send invitations.
Observed: Workshop attendee list was assembled and invitations sent to members of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission and Planning Commissioners from municipalities and communities within the
Northport/ Huntington Harbor Complex. In addition, we extended invitations to local developers, NGOs,
universities, and others to participate in the workshop.
Activity 7: Host workshop.
Observed: The first project workshop was held on June 16, 2014 at the Northport Public Library. This
workshop included various presentations and discussions.
Activity 8: Work with facilitator to analyze results.
Observed: Partners collaborated with facilitator to analyze results based off of feedback collected and notes
taken during the workshop. Key issues that were discussed during this work were included in this summary.
Activity 9: Research potential Low Impact Development (LID) demonstration sites.
Observed: Potential LID demonstration sites were researched and identified in preparation for the second
workshop. Maps were then created to depict specific geographic areas, which includes various potential
demonstration sites that would then be identified. These maps were created via ArcGIS/ArcMap and included
the Town of Huntington, Village of Asharoken, Village of Harbor Bay, and Village of Northport.
Activity 10: Based on findings, draft guidance document, Managing Stormwater: Natural Vegetation and
Green Methodologies Guidance for Municipalities and Developers.
Observed: Findings and results from the first workshop and survey questions were summarized and used to
develop the draft guidance document, and the Green Infrastructure Action Agenda, detailing the barriers to
green infrastructure adoption.
Activity 11: Interviews and follow-up as needed to inform draft.
Observed: Follow-up with workshop participants were conducted to gather information pertaining to potential
LID demonstration sites.
Activity 12: Gather results of early feedback ahead of next meeting.
Observed: Results and feedback were collected to inform the agenda and program for the second workshop.
Activity 13: Host second project workshop to review draft plan and collect feedback.
Observed: Hosted second workshop on October 9, 2014, at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of
Huntington, Social Hall in Huntington, NY. Agenda included reviewing and presenting the draft guidance
document, presentations, and break out groups to discuss potential LID demonstration sites. NWF & CCE
also received additional feedback on the draft document, including review by the Suffolk County Planning
Commission, the EPA, and local municipal officials in the Huntington area. During the course of the design
charrette, we encouraged local agencies to commit to installing green infrastructure demonstration projects.
During that charette several types of sites were identified as potential areas to use green infrastructure. This
included town and private beaches, parking lots along the harbor, Main Street parking lots and businesses (for
green roofs). As a result, in part, of project activities, the Town of Huntington is developing engineering plans
for a green infrastructure project at Centerport Beach. This was one of the sites community members
identified at the charette. The Town is currently looking to secure funds for the project and have committed
town funds of 50% towards it. We also worked closely with municipal leaders, stakeholders, and members of
the community to develop the plan, including the action agenda and site specific projects. This all helped
develop municipal buy-in to the plan.
Activity 14: Assemble invite list, send invitations for public meeting.
Observed: Invite list was assembled and sent for attendance at the public meeting.
Activity 15: Hold public meeting.
Observed: Held public meeting at the Suffolk County Legislative Building on February 5, 2015 in
Hauppauge, NY. Presentations were provided on topics relating to various types of green infrastructure,
funding opportunities, local programs, and potential demonstration sites. The meeting was opened with
welcoming remarks from two legislators and members of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, one of
which was Chairman David Calone. Approximately 40 individuals were in attendance.
Activity 16: Use workshop findings to revise plan and broadly disseminate.
Observed: Findings and results were used to inform and make final revisions to the Green Infrastructure
Guidance document and Green Infrastructure Action Agenda. This document was subsequently adopted by
the Suffolk County Planning Commission and broadly disseminated by the Suffolk County Planning
Commission to all local municipalities and local planning boards. It was also disseminated to the public via
CCE’s website, Facebook page, and Twitter account.
Briefly explain discrepancies between the activities conducted during the grant and the activities
agreed upon in your grant agreement.
Activity 6: Assemble attendee list, send invitations.
Explanation: We extended invitations to the workshops beyond just the members of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission, local planning boards and Huntington/Northport municipal officials to gain additional
insight on the barriers related to these communities within the Complex and gain additional feedback on the
Action Agenda. We also included developers, which we had not anticipated doing at first. After the first
workshop we partnered with the Suffolk County Planning Commission. This allowed us to reach all Suffolk
County Long Island Sound municipalities, while still being able to produce a local action agenda, specific to
the Northport Huntington Harbor region. The end product was official adopted by the Suffolk County
Planning Commission and is now used as a guidance document for all projects within the LIS watershed that
goes in front of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. This scope went beyond what we had originally
promised and produced a more widely used document.
Outcomes
Describe and quantify progress towards achieving the project outcomes described in your grant
agreement. (Quantify using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement or by using more
relevant metrics not included in the application.)
Outcome 1: Number of municipalities or local governments participating in the project
Anticipated: 5
Observed: 5
Outcome 2: Number of people reached by outreach, training, or technical assistance activities
Anticipated: 40,060
Observed: At least 40,600, based on the following estimates: CCE’s website generates approximately 5,000
new hits per week and they have 4,000 fans on Facebook, and 1,500 Twitter followers. We also have a
database of over 20,000 email members. CCE posted the action agenda on its website, emailed it to their
listserve of 20,000 members, and posted in on social media. In addition, The Suffolk County Planning
Commission distributed the document to all Long Island Sound municipalities within Suffolk County and
printed 150 hard copies that were distributed to members of the public.
Outcome 3: Number of people targeted by outreach, training, or technical assistance activities
Anticipated: 50
Observed: Because of the additional targeted outreach by Suffolk County, we believe at least 200 were
targeted.
Outcome 4: Number of people demonstrating a minimum level of knowledge, attitudes, or skills
Anticipated: 50
Observed: 70
Outcome 5: Number of workshops, webinars, and meeting held to address project activity
Anticipated: 3
Observed: We held three workshops as discussed above. Please see attached meeting materials.
Outcome 6: Number of plans developed that had input from multiple stakeholders
Anticipated: 1
Observed: We produced one plan, MANAGING STORMWATER: Natural Vegetation and Green
Methodologies Guidance for Municipalities and Developers V.2.0 (attached). This plan included an Action
Agenda that was specific to the Northport/Huntington harbor region.
Briefly explain discrepancies between what actually happened compared to what was anticipated to
happen.
Outcome 4: Number of people demonstrating a minimum level of knowledge, attitudes, or skills
Anticipated: 50
Discrepancy: Our original goal of 50 people demonstrating a minimum level of knowledge, attitudes, or skills
pertaining to the adoption of green infrastructure was exceeded with 70 individuals participating in the
workshops and public meetings.
Provide any further information (such as unexpected outcomes) important for understanding project
activities and outcome results.
Outcome 6: Number of plans developed that had input from multiple stakeholders
Discrepancy: We had not originally planned to create a Guidance Document that went geographically beyond
the Huntington area, but saw an opportunity to partner with Suffolk County Planning Commission and
ultimately created a product that goes even further than we had promised, while still being able to create a
local Action Agenda, which is based on community and municipal feedback we received in the workshops.
Through our ongoing conversations with the Town of Huntington, we know that are in the process of working
to implement some of the action agenda’s recommendations.
3. Lessons Learned
Describe the key lessons learned from this project, such as the least and most effective conservation practices or
notable aspects of the project’s methods, monitoring, or results. How could other conservation organizations adapt
their projects to build upon some of these key lessons about what worked best and what did not?
Perceived Knowledge of Green Infrastructure – At the beginning of this project, it was assumed that there was an
adequate baseline of knowledge and understanding about green infrastructure. Yet, upon administering our preliminary
survey questions to the members of the Suffolk County Planning Commission and Planning Commissioners, we quickly
found that many of the technical questions were difficult for many of the members to answer (e.g. What is green
infrastructure? What are the costs and benefits? When can green infrastructure be implemented?). For this reason, it was
decided to focus the first workshop on more of a “Green Infrastructure 101” session, where details relating to cost,
benefits, and types of green infrastructure were outlined and presented. We learned that not everyone participating in a
project such as this will have a same level of knowledge about the subject matter.
Participation – As follow-up, the second workshop was designed as a charrette-style brainstorming session where
attendees were presented with further costs/benefits, available financial incentives, local ordinances pertaining to their
communities, and maps of various locations meant to depict potential LID demonstration sites. By conducting this style of
participatory workshop, we learned that providing the attendees with these maps and dividing them into various
roundtables allowed for more interactive and productive discussions, both within and among the groups. Organizing in
this manner allowed for optimal brainstorming, collaboration, and a general sense of comradery amongst the different
municipalities.
Additional Outreach – We originally planned to only involve individuals who were official members of the municipalities
and commissions, yet decided to reach out to those beyond just city staff to include workshops included local citizens,
stakeholders, developers, and technology companies. We found this to be very beneficial and provided a lot of great input
during our workshop discussions and added valuable insight and information for the Guidance document and Action
Agenda.
Incentives are Important – Incentives are important to motivate people. It was found that even when information is readily
available, people still need to be motivated to widely adopt green infrastructure. Example incentives for green roofs could
include easing parking requirements (zoning regulations) or abatement on sanitary bills.
Representation – As part of our second workshop, we divided participants into various groups by town and/or village. The
participants included both stakeholders and those that actually lived in the communities within the Northport/Huntington
Harbor Complex. We found that inviting these individuals and breaking them up into various groups created an
environment for very productive discussions and provided critical insight into the most important barriers facing their
communities. A major lesson learned during this process was the need for more representation from individual
municipalities in inter-municipal agreements and inter-municipal councils where representatives could work together to
address many of these barriers to green infrastructure implementation. For example, the Oyster Bay/Cold Spring Harbor
committee is looking for more representation from people in the Huntington-Harbor region.
Support for Funding – While inter-municipal groups are looking for more representation from individual municipalities,
there is also a need for support from these groups to aid communities in seeking funding for green infrastructure projects.
Based on information provided by workshop participants, we learned that funding is a serious challenge with many of the
municipalities and needs to be addressed. Inter-municipal groups can play a huge and vital role in seeking, applying, and
securing funding. The villages and towns that reside within this Complex lack sufficient staff and resources to even
prepare grant proposals and applications, not to mention providing matching funds if they were to be awarded with a
grant. We also learned that these inter-municipal groups not only have the ability, but currently want to act in this type of
role for the municipalities. This relationship needs to be facilitated and formulized.
Weather – NWF and CCE were excited to partner with the Suffolk County Planning Commission during this project. This
allowed us to broaden our reach within Long Island Sound communities and to utilize the expertise of planning
commission members, who gave input into the content of the Action Agenda. Through this process, we learned that
holding a public meeting with the Suffolk County Planning Commission in February proved to be challenging due
inclement weather conditions. There was a significant decrease in attendance due to the threat and potential snow storm
which wreaked havoc on the Northeast last winter. We had over 70 participants pre-registered for the event, but with the
threat of a snowstorm only 40 attended. While timing for the meeting was based on the availability of the members of the
planning commission, and completion of the Guidance document, we would be hesitant to hold a public meeting in
February again.
Connectivity – Every participant and attendee of the survey, workshops, and public meetings were individually selected to
act as representatives of each municipality within the Northport/Huntington Harbor Complex. Yet these workshops and
meetings provided a venue for a collaborative effort in which the municipalities had to work together in order to identify
potential LID demonstration sites and provide insight into many of the barriers of adopting green infrastructure. Their
participation and collaboration provided one of most important lessons learned pertaining to the idea of connectivity. We
learned that individually, municipalities would not be able to understand and identify all of the challenges, barriers, and
subsequently, potential opportunities and solutions to these barriers. But by working and brainstorming together, they
were able to see existing and potential green infrastructure projects interconnect and aid in mitigating many of the
Complex’s stormwater issues. The theme of connectivity is important because one municipality’s problem is also another
municipality’s problem, especially in terms of environmental quality. By the same logic, this theme also applies to
potential solutions. The need for collaboration becomes imperative.
4. Dissemination
Briefly identify any dissemination of lessons learned or other project results to external audiences, such as the
public or other conservation organizations.
CCE has uploaded and posted a PDF version of the Action Agenda to their website. They have also emailed the guidance
document through their listerve and have posted it to their Facebook and Twitter accounts. CCE’s website generates
approximately 5,000 new hits per week. They have over 4,000 fans on Facebook and 1,500 followers on Twitter. The
Suffolk County Planning Commission has also distributed the document to all Long Island Sound municipalities within
Suffolk County. The County has printed 150 hard copies of the guide that we distributed to members of public.
Green Infrastructure Survey Town of Huntington Village of Northport
Town of Huntington--
Highway Superintendent
Phone Interview with Damon personal interview with peter
1. What to you perceive as the biggest barriers to
GI in your community
Northport is very built up, there is not
a lot of new development.
Pushback from local development
Yes, there is pushback from developers because of
the cost. Yes
Lack of awareness by the development community
on the benefits
Comes down to pre-cast structure vs. bio-retention,
developer wants easy, cheap pre-cast structure. Yes
lack of understanding about the benefits and
application of GI
there should be more public awareness, there is
lack of understanding by the public on the benefits
of GI
Yes--not a lot of awareness in
community, need more education Yes
Lack of education/technical expertise
Yes* (seemed to lack a clear
understanding of GI.)
Yes--He is new and lacks the
education and technical
expertise, but he is willingly and
open to learn.
Lack of resources
We have the engineering capability, but not always
the money to implement the project. We do
consider GI in new capital projects. Concerned about who pays
2. Are there any current projects/proposals in your
community that use GI Yes, Coral Park
NO. They did not use permeable
pavement when they re-did walkways
in village park because of cost, hard to
get product, does not last as long.
unknown--He is new and doesn't
know of any.
provide brief description Just put in two bio-swales.
How have they been successful
is there public ed component
Not yet, but they are considering signage. The
conservation board is also looking to develop a
welcome packet for new homeowners that includes
the environmental regulations in the town.
is there staff training
Other Projects
a. A new Huntington Hotel is looking at putting in a
green roof. B. Town installed a new rain garden by
train station. There is currently no signage. C.
Town installed a new rain garden by the bridge D.
Sweet Hollow Park is looking at using a gravel
parking lot. E. Town installed 2-3 new Vortex
separators F-NYS DOT improvement project--might
have done a surface sand filter on RT 110
3. Do you incorporate GI into your public spaces,
right-a-ways, or municipal parking?
The town does try to incorporate GI in new
projects, if funding available. The town has an open
space program, which dedicates monies to
neighborhood enhancements. Money can be used
for GI
No, there was one code change that
mandated homeowners to capture
run-off from there driveways when
they re-pave.
The Highway Department is
responsible for roadways,
sidewalks, and right-of-ways.
They follow state regulations,
not town code.
4. Do you require new development to incorporate
GI?
Commercial buildings have to attain LEED
certification is they are over 4,000 sq ft. This could
include GI, but the town does not require it.
Commercial sites also need to design for 3 inches of
stormwater--this usually leads to pre-cast drainage
or leeching pools. NO
State regulations do not require
it so they do not incorporate it
into new projects.
5. Have you changed your codes to encourage the
use of GI?
No, but GI is supported in our comprehensive plan.
The DEC requires that new SPDES permits need to
treat a certain % in pre-treatment. NO No
6. We plan to host a GI workshop--what issues
would you like us to address to help you implement
GI projects?
a- Developer perspective: How do we engage
developers? How do we talk to people that have
been doing it the same way for years? B-Grass--
opportunities that might be available. C-New
Resources that might be available for projects D-
How can projects be cost-efficient? E-Homeowner
component, what can people do? How will it help?
We need a clearer understanding of
GI. Need funding. There workers
comp went up 26%, they have state
mandates, they do not have any extra
funds for maintentence. Education--what is available
7. Please identify a specific site in your municipality
that would be a good demo site for GI?
a. Working on bio-retention project in Gerard St.
Parking lot. The project would pre-treat
stormwater. B. Armory--might be good site for
green roof C-Look at Crab Meadow watershed D-
Catch basin inserts for Eaton's Neck doesn't know.
Interesting in pursuing catch
basin filters with water quality
committee. Need to figure out
funding to do so. Also
interested in closing off
stormawater drains and re-
directing stormwater into a
leeching field
Plannning Board members
Adrienne Esposito, Vice Chair
Suffolk County Planning
Commission
Dave Calone, Chair Suffolk
County Planning Commission
Sarah Lansdale, Suffolk County
Planning Department
Rich Boziwick, Village of Northport
Planning Chair
*The Village Planning board can make
recommendations to the Village of
Northport for code changes. He would like
to kept in the loop on the project.
1. Are you seeing an increase use of GI in
development proposals? Yes, a little bit Yes Yes
2. What types of projects do you see?
permeable pavement, bio-swales,
rain gardens. The Suffolk County
planning commission sees projects
of regional signifinance.
mostly rain gardens, bio-swlaes,
some permeable pavement, no green
roofs
they mostly see applications for residential
homes. Applications coming in use more
efficient building materials, and the
landscaping is more in line with less run-off
3. Do you require all projects to incorporate
GI? Are their incentives to include?
No. It is recommended but not
required. They have developed a
guiding document that is
recommended to every proposal
that goes to the planning
department and planning
commission
There is no specific requirement, just
recommendations. No current
incentives
No, the project must meet the Village code.
They can recommend that the project use
GI, but can not mandate. The codes are
always one step behind. More muncipal
education is needed. They need to
incorporate GI into codes. They have some
pro-active aritects. If the project does not
meet codes, it must go through zoning
board.
4. Why do you feel developers are not
embracing and utilizing GI?
Lack of knowledge and lack of
mandates.
There needs to be a carrot/stick
approach--there should be
requirements for use of such
technology. Villages will reach out to
the County when they need
assistance, but they haven't reached
out on this. The County will be
testing innovative septic system at
Northport Yacht Club.
Money--dollars and cents. If project is
more money upfront, client is apt to not
take recommendations.
Contact Affliation Email phone
Margo Myles Town of Huntington, Planning & Environment [email protected]
Joy Squires EOSPA [email protected]
Damon McMullen Village of Northport [email protected] (631) 261-7502
Theresa Kingsley Town of Huntington, Sustainability officer [email protected] (631) 351-3191
Philip Ingerman
Town of Huntington, Director of Intergovernmental
Relations [email protected]
Nicholas Jimenez
Town of Huntington, Department of Engineering
Services [email protected]
Joseph Cline
Town of Huntington, Department of Engineering
Services, Director [email protected]
Mayor Greg Letica Village of Ashroken [email protected] 631-261-7098
Mayor Herb Morrow Village of Huntinton Bay [email protected] 631-427-2843
Adrienne Esposito Suffolk County Planning Commissioner [email protected] 516-390-7150
Sarah Lansdale Suffolk County Department of Planning [email protected] 631-853-5191
Dave Calone Chair-Suffolk County Planning Commission [email protected]
Peter Gunther Town of Huntington, Highway Superintendant [email protected] 631-499-0444)
Rich Boziwick Planning Board Chair, Village of Northport [email protected] 516-353-7198
Draft May 22,2104
Long Island Sound Green Infrastructure Workshop Northport Public Library, 151 Laurel Ave, Northport, NY 11768
June 16, 2014 Purpose
Create a baseline of understanding of Green Infrastructure.
Discuss opportunities and obstacles for promoting Green Infrastructure on Long Island. Agenda 12:30 Arrival, Lunch 1:00 Welcome and Introductions 1:15 Presentation: Introduction to Green Infrastructure
What is Green Infrastructure and why should we consider it on Long Island?
Examples of effective uses of Green Infrastructure
Costs and Benefits
Q&A 1:45 Presentation and Discussion: Potential Uses of Green Infrastructure
Opportunities and constraints specific to Long Island
Suffolk County Planning Commission’s Green Methodologies Guidance Document, David L. Calone, Chairman Suffolk County Planning Commission
Lindenhurst Library Project, Peter Ward
Additional speakers TBD
Q&A
Group discussion of opportunities and obstacles to Green Infrastructure 2:45 Break 3:00 Table Conversations
Think about your communities and the types of situations where green infrastructure makes sense, what kind of projects would be beneficial to the community and the environment if modest resources were available?
3:45 Share Results of Table Conversations 4:00 Presentation: Resources to Make Green Infrastructure Work
Creating realistic policy
Creating incentives
Funding sources and approaches to affordability 4:15 Table Conversations
What actions and/or resources are needed for communities to give more serious attention to Green Infrastructure?
What are realistic next steps for communities to begin informing, promoting and incentivizing the use of Green Infrastructure?
Are there possible project sites that make sense to explore? 4:45 Share Results of Table Conversations 5:00 Adjourn
Copyright:© 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
A
Ü
Huntington #1
Draft 10/1/2104
Long Island Sound 2nd Green Infrastructure Workshop Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Huntington, Social Hall
109 Browns Road, Huntington, NY 11743 October 9, 2014
Purpose
Provide an overview of the Draft Action Agenda and Guidance documents, which will focus on the ways in which Green Infrastructure (GI) can be used to reduce stormwater pollution in Long Island. Green Infrastructure includes rain gardens, green roofs, permeable paving, and other features.
Incorporate your feedback for a final document that will be publically released in December.
Agenda 8:30 Arrival, Coffee and light breakfast 9:00 Welcome and Introductions 9:15 Introduction and Overview of the Green Infrastructure Project
Purpose
What we have heard to date
Overview of what is in the document 9:30 Presentation and Discussion: Implementing Green Infrastructure on Long Island
Technical Considerations
Examples of successful policies and approaches
Sources of Funding
Examples of successful projects
Group discussion: What additional information or resources do we need to be able to take action? What else should be addressed in the action plan?
10:15 Break 10:30 Mini-Charrette: Applying Green Infrastructure at Huntington Harbor
Short Presentation on opportunities for Green infrastructure, locations and types of projects.
Small group activity to identify preferred locations, community desired activities, potential partnerships, and priorities for green infrastructure. Explore and discuss opportunities such as:
o Bigger tree boxes and green spaces o Permeable parking lots and pavements o Green roofs o Bioswales o Graywater projects o Food gardens.
11:45 Share Results of Green Infrastructure Mini-Charrette 12:00 Identify Next Steps and Adjourn
1
Long Island Sound 2nd Green Infrastructure Workshop Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Huntington, Social Hall
109 Browns Road, Huntington, NY 11743 October 9, 2014
DRAFT SUMMARY
I. Purpose of the Workshop
Provide an overview of the Draft Action Agenda and Guidance documents, which will focus on the ways in which Green Infrastructure (GI) can be used to reduce stormwater pollution in Long Island. Green Infrastructure includes rain gardens, green roofs, permeable paving, and other features.
Incorporate participant feedback into a final document that will be publically released in December.
II. Agenda Topics
Introduction and Overview of the Green Infrastructure Project
Purpose of the Green Infrastructure Project
Comments received to date
Overview of what is in the draft document
Technical Considerations
Examples of successful policies and approaches to Green infrastructure
Sources of Funding to Green infrastructure
Examples of green infrastructure products
Mini-Charrette: Applying Green Infrastructure in Local Communities
This small group activity discussed and identified preferred locations, community desired activities, potential partnerships, and priorities for green infrastructure in Huntington, Huntington Bay and Northport Village.
2
III. Results of the Mini-Charette Group 1. Huntington A wide range of possible projects and locations were discussed:
Red’s Restaurant o Plans to put in one story apartment above the restaurant o Neighbor wants to put in solar panels, rain garden, etc (going to the site
plan, no official plans)
Old Town Hall o Currently a hotel o Putting in green roof o Circled in Orange
Several development projects going in with 2-3 story apartments, could be targets for GI
Gerard Street o Already installing bioswales; getting ready to plant
Municipal Parking Lots o Could mix permeable pavement with green spaces to maintain current
level of parking spaces o More cost-effective to rip up tar and put in green islands o There are products of pervious pavement that don’t use gravel which
would make it more cost effective
Green roofs o Down sprouts connect to bioswales in the streets o Planting areas on corners
Roundabouts with rain gardens in the center
Hotels o Well-being program where GI could meet the standards
Biggest problem in the village is parking o Parking lanes along NY avenue and Main street could have permeable
pavement; OR o put rain gardens in front of the gutters, so overflows will be cleaner going
into gutters.
Expand and elongate tree boxes on Main street o Can also put pavement on top of tree boxes to save for sidewalk space
TD Bank is a culvert
NY and Spring Road o Big depression area o Retention area?
Space behind Red’s Restaurant o Looks like a dead space o Could be used for something
Could use permeable pavement on hotel roof to create more parking spaces
West side of town is all downhill, so you can retain the stormwater there
3
Culvert runs down NY Avenue and Main Street
Looking to construct a parking lot o Prime opportunity to put GI along Main street o Could create a tax incentive to fund projects o Water infiltrates into pipes; figure out how much it costs to treat the water
and then create a tax around that
A lot of issues are centered around people have the skills and ability to construct green roofs and permeable pavement effectively
More important to have permeable pavement uphill rather than downhill
Harbor Bay o Beach clubs o High tide; catch basins aren’t enough o Large parking lots attached o Larger projects have educational purpose as well
Overall considerations:
Need incentives to motivate people o Financial, zoning (parking), rebates
Educate developers and constructors
Funding o Help people with the grant writing process
Conservation/restoration of natural resources o Protecting wetlands
Connectivity o How projects are all connected
Inter-municipal council o Northport, Huntington, and Asharoken o Go after more funding/grants o Trying to partner with other organizations
Inter-municipal agreements o Interested in Huntington and Northport Bay o Let’s work together to save water o Representatives of the municipalities (mayor, trustees, contracted
engineer)
4
Group 2. Huntington Bay
Several beach clubs are in hilly areas directly across from the Sound, and could use GI projects in and around the parking lots. These areas are visible and frequented, which would be good for not only reducing runoff but also for visibility and public education.
Fleet’s Cove – this is a public beach/outdoor area with a parking lot on the beach front across from a Town-owned pond. There is not only a problem with runoff but also with saltwater intrusion. Ideas are for a backflow protector or tide gate to prevent saltwater intrusion, and for the lot to install porous pavement, bioswales, and tree boxes.
Bay Hills Club – this club is private, but they have a real need since there is an outdated outfall pipe and serious runoff problem, as well as issues with saltwater intrusion. Like Fleet’s Cove, a backflow protector and GI projects in a parking lot are an option. Since doing GI projects in the parking lot may be an issue since it is private property and could be costly, one idea was to offer a Town or Village program for residents across/on the road of the club and parking lot so that homeowners could install rain gardens.
Vineyard Road Tidal Pond – this pond falls near an outfall pipe between two beaches (Nathan Hale and Bay Crest), and would benefit from GI projects on the roads leading to the pond. Ideas include incentives for homeowners to install rain gardens or native vegetation on their property.
Mill Pond – problem area off of major road (25A) – could also do home rain gardens along pond.
Crescent Club could do a green roof, but the club is private and it sits in the middle of golf course, so not great for public visibility or a pilot project.
Across from the harbor in Centerport Beach there is steep decline that leads right to a picnic area and the beach. There is need for wetland restoration, and a rain garden could be helpful by the picnic area.
Overall considerations:
There were some issues figuring out what was Town vs. Village vs. private home association jurisdiction, so projects in this area may require some coordination between different agencies/entities.
The Village already has in their code that homeowner’s drainage pipes must run into dry well.
The idea of a homeowner incentive for rain gardens or residential installation project for native vegetation was brought up several times – the Village could cover some costs with a GI revolving loan fund and may be able to get money from Suffolk County under the water quality fund created by a quarter-cent sales tax (GI projects are eligible). The Town may be able to aid as well with funding from open spaces and parks programs.
5
Group 3. Northport Village
A variety of sites were discussed:
Main Street Parking Lots o Challenges: 4ft water level would make any kind of underground storage
of storm water very difficult. Buried utilities and outfall pipes are also a challenge. In addition, there are extremely old pipes under parking lots and roads downtown.
o Large volumes of water all end up at this point during major storms, so there is a real need to capture storm water uphill before it reaches this point. A feasibility study would be needed to see what could realistically be done.
o The group noted that there is a lot of wasted space in the Main Street parking lots, particularly the lot adjacent to the Park with the Gazebo. Redesigning these parking lots could incorporate green infrastructure for a more efficient use of space while reducing impervious cover and maintaining the same number of parking spaces.
Downtown Northport o Sidewalks are already smaller than regulation, and so adding tree boxes
or plantings along sidewalks would be difficult. o Install additional catch basins along Main Street (Village has a grant for
this) o The group identified three Village-owned parking lots on Main Street that
could be used for Green Infrastructure projects: One lot located next to print shop; Union Place parking lot; The lot across from the Northport Fire Department
o Church Parking Lots-St. Philip Neri, Presbyterian Church and the Methodist Church
Chosen because these parking lots are likely underutilized most days of the week
Village is already working with St. Philip Neri and the Presbyterian Church to install additional catch basins to their parking lots (grant funded). The Methodist Church is not working with them
o Green Roofs in Northport Village Would need to figure out where the roof drains are currently going
Upstream Locations o Main Street and Church Street identified as a potential location upstream o Pocket Park and triangle located at bottom of James Street hill near Bluff
Point Road and Woodbine o Valley Road and Ocean Avenue would be a good upstream location for a
Green Infrastructure project Challenge: buried utilities
o Ocean Avenue Elementary School Cornell Cooperative Extension offers a free educational program
about storm water and green infrastructure for schools. For
6
elementary schools, they offer an educational component combined with the hands on activity of building a rain garden.
o Scudder Beach Area o Route 25A especially near Britania Marina where runoff enters the base of
Northport Harbor. (State owned) o Waterside Road and Locust Road- there is a triangular shaped road
divider that could be converted into a GI project o Laurel Avenue School
Large parking lot that is not used to capacity The Village got a grant to install a number of catch basins and
would like to install them in this parking lot, but so far school has been totally unresponsive
o Laurel Avenue- Traffic median could be extended o Northport Library
Overall considerations:
Incentives needed for any residential green infrastructure projects
Funding is a serious challenge for the Village o NYS Tax cap coupled with cost of upgrading Northport STP is a constraint
Matching funds would be difficult to impossible for Village o Village needs help writing grants
Village lacks sufficient staff and resources to prepare grant proposals.
o Potential sources of funding considered: Storm water fees? Rebate program for residents similar to MS4 program? When someone sells a house, require them to upgrade/add a storm
drain? Something similar to Real Estate Transfer Tax?
7
IV. Summary Discussion A number of key points were raised in the summary discussion among participants:
Incentives are important to motivate people o Example incentives for green roofs could include easing parking
requirements (zoning) or abatement on sanitary bill
Hold an education forum to deal with government push-back o Could invite government leaders and consultants and their staff o Discuss environmental benefits, financial benefits of GI
Some of the unwillingness to embrace GI that is coming from the government side may be due to funding and money
o Provide more information about funding options, e.g., what is required to apply for grants? What are the steps?
o The Inter-Municipal Council (Northport, Asharoken, Huntington) was just formed, so maybe could work together to apply for funds, do group purchasing, etc.
Conservation and restoration of natural systems as a GI approach needs to be better emphasized – e.g., enhancing wetlands for flood protection
Connectivity should be a key theme – how existing and potential projects interconnected and how do they fit together
An education component is needed -a GI tour of the area could be a good way to educate the public and government officials about GI
o Could include educational signage
The Oyster Bay/Cold Spring Harbor Committee is looking for more representation from people in the Huntington-Harbor region
o Committee is composed of representatives from the municipalities who are invited to serve (not necessarily government representatives)
MANAGING STORMWATER Natural Vegetation and Green Methodologies Guidance for Municipalities and Developers V.2.0 2015 Suffolk County, New York
2
About National Wildlife Federation
The National Wildlife Federation is the United States' largest private, nonprofit conservation education and advocacy organization, with over four million members and supporters, and 48 state and territorial affiliated organizations.
About Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE) CCE is a non-partisan advocacy organization supported by over 80,000 members working to protect public health and the natural environment. For more about CCE please visit our website at www.citizenscampaign.org
Suffolk County Planning Commission Under state and county law, the Suffolk County Planning Commission is responsible for identifying and promoting county-wide land use values and planning priorities. This includes creating Suffolk County’s Comprehensive strategic plan, reviewing major development projects proposed within the County, making recommendations to local municipalities about policies that have regional impact, and developing common municipal approaches to address issues affecting the future of Suffolk County. The County Planning Commission is comprised of 15 members who are nominated by the County Executive and are confirmed by the County Legislature.
Report Contributors Primary Report Author Kara Reeve—National Wildlife Federation, Manager, Climate-Smart Communities Program Dominique Kone—National Wildlife Federation, Climate and Wildlife Safeguards Program
Report Contributors and Editors Maureen Dolan Murphy—CCE Executive Programs Manager Annie McClelland — CCE Long Island Program Coordinator
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Long Island Sound Futures Fund, NFWF and the Long Island Sound Study for their generous grant support for this guidance document.
3
I. Stormwater Challenges on Long Island................................................................................... 4
What is Stormwater Management? ............................................................................................ 5
Checklist for Addressing Stormwater .......................................................................................... 6
II. Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure ............................................................... 7
Green Infrastructure Practices ..................................................................................................... 8
III. Costs and Benefits of Green Infrastructure ......................................................................... 10
Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Benefits ...................................................................................................................................... 11
IV. Policies and Incentives to Catalyze the Use of Green Infrastructure.................................... 16
Regional/Local ............................................................................................................................ 16
Local Case Studies ...................................................................................................................... 18
National ...................................................................................................................................... 19
V. Funding Sources ................................................................................................................. 20
Regional/Local ............................................................................................................................ 20
National ...................................................................................................................................... 22
VI. Actions and Activities ........................................................................................................ 23
Updates to Land Using Planning and Zoning Requirements & Incentives ................................ 23
Educate and Recognize Leadership in the Development Community ...................................... 23
Build Greater Public Awareness about Green Infrastructure .................................................... 24
Partner with Schools and Universities ....................................................................................... 24
VII. Opportunities for Green Infrastructure in Huntington-Harbor Complex ............................. 25 Potential Green Infrastructure Demonstration Sites................................................................. 25
Opportunities for Partnerships, Outreach, etc. ......................................................................... 26
VIII. Additional Resources ....................................................................................................... 28
General Information on Green Infrastructure ........................................................................... 28
Information on School and University Programs ....................................................................... 28
IX. Sample Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 29
X. Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 31
Table of Contents
4
I. Stormwater Challenges on Long Island
Stormwater pollution is a cause of water quality impairment
throughout Long Island’s bays, harbors, estuaries, lakes, and
rivers. As polluted stormwater runs into water systems, it
degrades our water quality, threatening marine life, closing
beaches and contributing to closed shellfish beds that help
support the local economy. Runoff from stormwater is defined
by the U.S. EPA as “generated when precipitation from rain
and snowmelt events flows over land or impervious surfaces
and does not percolate into the ground. As the runoff flows
over the land or impervious surfaces (paved streets, parking
lots, and building rooftops), it accumulates debris, chemicals,
sediment or other pollutants that could adversely affect water
quality if the runoff is discharged untreated” (United States
Environmental Protection Agency). In a highly developed area
like Long Island there is a high percentage of impervious
surfaces, which contributes to more stormwater runoff and
limits the ability of water to infiltrate into the ground.
When stormwater runoff travels too quickly over impervious
surfaces and flows into harbors, bays and streams, it picks up
and carries with it a higher amount of sediment and other
pollutants. Pollutants include motor oil, pesticides, debris,
harmful bacteria, and nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus. This swiftly traveling stormwater can also worsen
erosion and flooding, and contributes to the loading of
nonpoint source pollutants into harbors, bays, and rivers.
The existing stormwater runoff problem is worsening due to
climate change. According to the National Climate Assessment
(www.globalchange.gov), “The Northeast has experienced a
greater increase in extreme precipitation than any other region
in the U.S.; between 1958 and 2010, the Northeast saw more
than a 70% increase in the amount of precipitation falling in
very heavy events.” In the summer of 2014, Long Island
experienced a record setting rainfall of 11 inches within 24
hours. As the region experiences wetter weather and more
extreme storms, existing stormwater management plans and
infrastructure are not designed to account for these changes,
but green infrastructure can help manage the current and
future precipitation in the region.
5
What is Stormwater Management?
Under natural conditions, stormwater is absorbed into the
ground, where it is filtered and ultimately replenishes
aquifers or flows into streams, rivers and estuaries. In
developed areas, however, impervious surfaces, such as
pavement and building roofs, prevent precipitation from
naturally soaking into the ground. Instead, the water runs
rapidly into storm drains and drainage ditches. The
resulting rush of stormwater discharge can cause
infrastructure damage, downstream flooding, and stream
bank erosion.
Stormwater management addresses these concerns
through a variety of techniques, including strategic site
design, measures to control the sources of runoff, and
thoughtful landscape planning. Managing stormwater has
multiple benefits which include environmental, economic,
and human health, including the following:
Reduced Maintenance & Repair Costs
Reduced and Delayed Runoff Volumes
Enhanced Groundwater Recharge
Pollutant Reductions into rivers, stream, tributaries
and bays
Reduced Sewer Overflow Events
Increased Carbon Sequestration (ie., carbon storage)
Urban Heat Island Mitigation and Reduced Energy
Demands
Improved Air Quality
Additional Wildlife Habitat and Recreational Space.
Improved Human Health
Stormwater runoff is regulated under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), however
most states implement the NPDES program as a state
program – SPDES. The NPDES program covers the
following activities: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems, Construction Activities, and (Large) Industrial
activities (United States Environmental Protection Agency).
Stormwater runoff from these activities is considered point
source pollution, or direct discharge.
6
Checklist for Addressing Stormwater
Reducing stormwater runoff from direct discharge activities (e.g. pipes that release water directly
to waterways) is only part of the solution. Protecting, enhancing, and restoring native vegetation
and providing incentives to use green infrastructure to protect groundwater and surface water
quality is a key part of successful stormwater management. Groundwater recharge is important
to the long-term health and sustainability of communities, and therefore efforts to protect
vegetation and recharge areas can result in cost savings for municipalities. The following is a quick
checklist to help you start assessing what measures can be taken to protect ground and surface
water:
□ Do you have zoning overlay districts specifically devoted to groundwater protection?
□ Do you have written standards for handling storm water to incorporate with deed covenants
and restrictions associated with zoning changes?
□ Do your subdivision regulations allow for alternative design, storage and reuse of storm
water on development parcels, on planned rights-of-way, and within engineered structures, such as leaching basins, catch basins, recharge basins, or perforated pipe?
□ Do your site plan review requirements permit alternative stormwater design and rainscaping
techniques such as temporary parking pavement waivers, roof and pavement drainage structures such as porous pavement, rain gardens, bio-retention basins, bio-swales, and green roofs?
□ Do your codes contain incentives for the retention or re-establishment of existing native
plantings and non-disturbance of natural recharge areas?
□ Do your codes contain disincentives to discourage extensive fertilized vegetation, automatic
irrigation, impervious surface and urban heat island effect and, conversely, to encourage drought-tolerant plants, no-mow meadowland, upgrade and renewal of natural process for site work?
7
Green Infrastructure (GI) is described by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a solution
that, “…uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to
manage water and create healthier urban
environments” (United States Environmental Protection
Agency). Green Infrastructure could include retaining
our remaining natural landscapes; restoring or re-
creating an environment similar to pre-development
conditions, or mimicking natural systems.
Green infrastructure is an approach to wet weather
management that is cost-effective, sustainable, and
environmentally friendly. Green Infrastructure
management approaches and technologies infiltrate,
evapotranspire, capture, and reuse stormwater to
maintain or restore natural hydrologic systems.
At the largest scale, the preservation and restoration of
natural landscape features (such as forests, floodplains
and wetlands) are critical components of green
stormwater infrastructure. By protecting these
ecologically sensitive areas, communities can improve
water quality while providing wildlife habitat and
opportunities for outdoor recreation.
On a smaller scale, green infrastructure practices include rain gardens, porous pavements, green roofs, bio-
retention basins, bio-swales, conservation and restoration of natural systems, and native/natural
landscaping. All of these practices play a vital role in stormwater management while improving and
maintaining the environmental quality of surrounding communities.
Green infrastructure is often used inter-changeably with the term low-impact development (LID). The EPA
defines LID as “a land development approach that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its
source as possible. This development approach aims to conserve and restore natural landscape features,
which reduces imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a
resource rather than a waste product. By implementing LID principles and practices, water can be managed
in a way that lessens the impact of built areas and supports the natural movement of water within an
ecosystem or watershed” (United States Environmental Protection Agency).
II. Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure
8
Green Infrastructure Practices
BIO-RETENTION BASIN – An area designed to accept and retain
stormwater, to slow or block either its discharge to surface water
or its recharge to groundwater, to lessen erosion, allow for filtering
of sediments, plant root uptake of nutrients, and biologically
control the water. It may be equipped with various overflows or
high water level bypasses to transport amounts of water exceeding
its holding capacity.
BIO-SWALE – A linear area designed to capture, slow, and
distribute flowing water so that plants can absorb the water.
These vegetated areas may be supplemented by under drains,
overflows or other engineering devices to cope with unusual
storm events.
GREEN ROOF – A building roof that is engineered to be
covered with low-maintenance growing plants that
insulate in winter, cool the building in summer, reduce
solar absorption, reduce precipitation run-off surfaces,
and improve interior Heating, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) efficiency.
GREEN STREETSCAPE — Although streetscapes are
traditionally constructed with asphalt or concrete, streets,
sidewalks, curbs, and other features can be retrofitted and/
or constructed to incorporate more permeable, natural
surfaces. Green streetscapes incorporate sustainable design
practices that not only improve the management of
stormwater on-site, but have additional benefits, such as
improved air quality. Planting of street trees and expanding
tree box size, “greening” medians, using porous pavement,
and incorporating bioswales and rain gardens into the
streetscape design are all be considered features of a green
streetscape.
9
NATIVE/NATURAL LANDSCAPING – This practice encompasses
techniques such as planting native plant species, urban forests,
drought-tolerant plant species, and native grasses with minimal
mowing activity. Typical plant or grass species used in native/
natural landscaping practices are those that have the capacity to
thrive with minimal water and are able to store water during
extended dry periods, are not introduced from outside the
geographical area, and are genetically suited to thrive with little to
no maintenance, in the original soils to which it is accustomed.
POROUS/PERMEABLE PAVEMENT – A hard surface with load bearing
capacity engineered to allow for the passage of water through pores.
Porous pavements are often underlain by carefully engineered layers of
crushed rock, fabric filter cloth, piping, or drains. Types of porous
pavement may include paving blocks with open corners, lattices, or
edges or asphalt/concrete mixes without fine sediments.
RAIN GARDEN – A vegetated area designed to capture and
retain stormwater so that plants may absorb the water. These
areas are often outfitted with under drains, overflows, or other
engineering devices to cope with extreme storm events.
CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION OF NATURAL
SYSTEMS – The conservation of natural features in their
original state. Natural features that are particularly
important in addressing stormwater issues include riparian
areas, wetlands, and steep hillsides. The EPA provides an
educational and comprehensive report on this at: http://
water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/
gi_action_strategy.pdf
10
III. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
One of the biggest issues in recognizing the full potential of using green infrastructure practices in
stormwater management is taking into account all of the costs and benefits. This is especially true for
identifying the vast benefits that green infrastructures provides for coastal communities because they are
difficult to value. Additionally, the full cost of pollution, such as pollutants in stormwater, are externalized
and difficult to connect to the polluter, undermining the full costs. These factors can often result in a
disconnect between perceived costs and benefits.
Despite these barriers, there are many costs and benefits that have been identified:
Costs
INSTALLATION COSTS – The overall costs to implement a project will vary depending on various factors
such as size, design, equipment/materials, purpose, and labor requirements. Furthermore, bio-retention
basins, bioswales, green roofs, porous pavement, and rain gardens, all have varying costs per square unit
because of their different construction, maintenance, and material needs. These factors not only result in
cost variations between the different types of green infrastructure, but also among different project sites of
the same infrastructure type. In Prince George’s County, Maryland, the cost of installing a bio-retention basin
on a residential lot subdivision was estimated at $1,075, while the cost of installing a basin on a commercial
subdivision lot was estimated at $10,357 (Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland, 2007). This
difference in price is due to a difference in size, design, and purpose of the lots.
Estimated costs of installing a green roof start at $10 per square foot for simpler roofing, and $25 per square
foot for intensive roofs. Likewise, the installation cost per square yard of porous pavements varies depending
on the type of materials used—porous asphalt was quoted at $31.00, porous pavers at $104.31, and porous
concrete at $60.75 (Rowe 2009).
Costs Installation Costs
Maintenance & Lifecycle
Consumer Aesthetic Appeal & Usability
Benefits Reduced Maintenance & Repair Costs
Reduced Runoff Volume & Overflow Events
Environment & Human Health
Wildlife Habitat & Recreational Space
Urban Heat Island Mitigation & Reduced Energy Demands
Job Creation
11
MAINTENANCE & LIFECYCLE – The cost of maintenance also depends on the type of green infrastructure
and lifecycle. Green infrastructure maintenance may be more or less expensive than gray infrastructure
maintenance when taking into account these two factors. The annual maintenance cost of green roofs range
from $0.75 - $1.50 per square foot, which is typically higher than a conventional black roof by $0.21 - $0.31 per
square foot (Peck & Kuhn, 2003). These higher costs are a result of maintenance needs of the rooftop
vegetation. Porous pavements also incur maintenance costs, especially during winter months when sand and
salt can clog pores. Regular maintenance is required to clear these areas. Property owners should provide a
budget for maintenance at an annual rate of 1-2% of construction costs (Metropolitan Area Planning Council).
In contrast, native/natural landscaping practices, such as planting native and drought tolerant plants, incur
almost zero maintenance costs as these plants are suitably adapted for the geographic area.
CONSUMER AESTHETIC APPEAL & USABILITY – While aesthetic appeal and usability are difficult to
monetize, consumer satisfaction is an important factor in identifying perceived costs. Consumers or members
of the community may be dissatisfied with either the look of green infrastructure or the quality. Many
consumers have struggled with getting consistent quality out of porous pavement as it tends to wear out faster
than concrete (Clean Water America Alliance, 2011). In the case of native/natural landscaping, uprooting turf
grass and replacing lawns with native species typically takes 2-3 years to mature (United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 2004). Until then, the area may look sparse or patchy, resulting in dissatisfied consumers.
Benefits
ENVIRONMENT & HUMAN HEALTH – One of the biggest benefits of green infrastructure is the ability to
improve and maintain the quality of the environment, specifically water and air. By infiltrating, absorbing,
and retaining stormwater, green infrastructure prevents pollutants and nutrients from entering into nearby
water systems, subsequently improving water quality. These trends can have huge implications for
improved human health as a result of a healthier environment. Many studies have found a strong positive
relationship between the amount of green space and human well-being and health in various communities
(Tzoulas et al., 2007).
Bio-retention basins, bioswales, rain gardens, porous
pavement, and native/natural landscaping, all remove
suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, and heavy metals,
such as cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc from stormwater.
Systems such as bio-retention basins, bioswales, and rain
gardens, can remove an average of 80% of the total
suspended solids, 60% of total phosphorous, 50% of total
nitrogen, and 80% of heavy metals (Upstate Forever). A
study in Greenbelt, MD, found removal rates of more than
90% for copper, lead, and zinc, 65-75% removal of
phosphorus, and 45-60% removal of nitrogen (United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000).
12
WILDLIFE HABITAT & RECREATIONAL SPACE –
Green infrastructure practices are often referred to as
“multifunctioning natural habitats” because of their
ability to act as both stormwater management tools
and conservation tools. Through the use of native plant
species, they provide natural habitats for and attract
wildlife, as well as serving as an aesthetic commodity to
the landscape. The use of bio-retention basins, natural
systems, bioswales, green roofs, rain gardens, and
native/natural landscaping, have huge implications for
butterfly, moth, bird, and insect species that depend
upon the services provided. Many of these species are
particularly crucial to the health of the environment as
they play vital roles as pollinators. Furthermore,
building off this idea of improved water quality, green
infrastructure also supports many aquatic wildlife, such
as fish and invertebrate species, which can only survive
under specific ranges in water quality and temperature.
REDUCED MAINTENANCE & REPAIR COSTS –
Many of these features (bio-retention basin, bioswales,
rain gardens, native/natural landscaping) have lower
maintenance (e.g. landscaping, watering, pesticides,
and fertilizers) and repair (e.g. replacement, and longer
lifecycle) costs in comparison to gray infrastructure.
Specifically, bio-retention basins tend to have lower
maintenance and liability costs; primarily due to
facilities being located at the source rather than at the
end of the pipe (Department of Environmental
Resources, Maryland, 2007). Bio-retention basins and
bioswales only incur maintenance costs of 5-7% of
overall construction costs of the infrastructure (United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006).
Likewise, in regions of the country like Long Island that
require plowing of snow, porous pavements tend to
require little maintenance because melt water is
allowed to infiltrate rather than freeze as an ice layer.
Sylvan Avenue Permeable
Project
In 2010, this project was implemented in
Ann Arbor, MI, which installed an 800-
foot long, 20-foot wide residential
porous roadway. After the installation, it
was found there was a significantly lower
amount of ice and snow which required
less plowing and salting of the roadway
(Buckley et al., 2011).
13
Additionally, native/natural landscaping and techniques (rain garden, bioswales, and bio-retention basins) that incorporate native and drought tolerant plants have lower long-term maintenance costs due to reduced irrigation, pesticide, and fertilizer needs. A project in Illinois found a significant decrease in maintenance costs associated with native/natural landscaping than conventional turf grass. The 10-year average maintenance costs per acre of turf grass was estimated at $5,550, while the 10-year average maintenance costs per acre of native/natural landscaping was estimated at only $1,600 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2004).
REDUCED RUNOFF VOLUME & OVERFLOW EVENTS – It is estimated that 25% of the $1 billion in annual
damages from flooding are linked to stormwater (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2005). Therefore
the infiltration, absorption, and retention abilities of green infrastructure could and currently does have a huge
impact on mitigating stormwater damages. Increasing infiltration, absorption, and retention reduces the
amount of water energy flowing through local storm sewers and stormwater systems and reduces flooding-
related impacts, such as decreased property value, damages to public infrastructure, and repair costs.
In farming operations and the use of greenhouses, phosphorus and nitrogen that crops use and dispense can
create run-off with poor water quality. Farmers can use GI to mitigate and filter this run-off. In Eastern Suffolk
County, farmers such as Gabrielsen’s Country Farm have used bio-swales surrounding greenhouses to control
run-off.
Rain gardens reduce stormwater runoff volume by temporarily
storing water and returning it to the ground, reducing the
immediate volume load on water bodies and the storm drain
system by up to 98% which in turn helps to reduce the risk of
flash floods (Upstate Forever). In 2008, the Saylors Grove bio-
retention basin intercepted 73% (25.4 of 34.8 million gallons) of
stormwater runoff and resulted in a significant reduction in
rainfall intensity peak flow (Howley).
Porous pavements also play a vital role in reducing runoff. Analyzing the percent of rainfall converted to runoff
volume for various pavement scenarios, porous pavement coupled with a bioswale (10%) is much more
effective at preventing rainfall from converting to runoff than asphalt (51%), asphalt with a bioswale (34%), and
even cement with a bioswale (32%) (Clark & Acomb).
Jordan Cove Watershed
In 2003, a study conducted in this watershed
(Waterford, CT), which drains into Long
Island Sound, investigated the average
infiltration rates of porous pavement in
comparison to asphalt. The study concluded
that porous pavement (8.1 inches per hour)
had a higher average infiltration rate than
asphalt (0 inches per hour) (Interlocking
Concrete Pavement Institute, 2004).
14
URBAN HEAT ISLAND MITIGATION & REDUCED ENERGY DEMANDS – Green infrastructure
dramatically increases energy efficiency by reducing heating and cooling demands of buildings, resulting in
lower energy bills. Additionally, green infrastructures that incorporate the use of trees and urban forests
provide added shading that can mitigate the effect of urban heat islands. A typical medium-sized tree absorbs
70-90% of sunlight and reduces the maximum surface temperature of roofs and walls of buildings by 11-25
degrees Celsius (Foster et al., 2011).
Green roofs, in particular, show huge reductions in energy use and costs. Vegetation on green roofs lower the
absorption of solar radiation and thermal conductance, which can substantially lower building temperatures
during warm periods and decrease energy consumption. During cooler periods, green roofs act as extra
insulation, reducing heat loss and increasing energy efficiency. In 2006, commercial and industrial energy costs
in the U.S. totaled $202.3 billion, with roughly 50% due to indoor heating and lighting. Widespread
implementation of green roofs, with their ability to reduce indoor energy consumption by 7-10% per year,
could save the U.S. economy $7-$10 billion per year (US EPA 2006).
American Society of Landscape Architects
In 2006, the American Society of Landscape Architects replaced their existing roof in
Washington, DC, with a green roof (pictured below). They observed a 10% reduction in building
energy use during the winter months and a 59 degree (F) reduction in temperature during the
summer months compared to the previous conventional roof (American Society of Landscape
Architects 2012).
15
The Center for Neighborhood Technology and American Rivers has created a helpful guide describing the steps
necessary to value many environmental, social, and public health benefits of green infrastructure. The guide
includes simple, the illustrative examples to assist municipalities and developers in performing their own
calculations. The guide can be found here: http://www.cnt.org/repository/gi-values-guide.pdf
JOB CREATION – Due to the vast number of green infrastructure techniques that hold the capability
of mitigating stormwater management issues, capacity and expertise is needed in the installation and
design, operations and maintenance, and supply chain of these techniques. Similarly, it was found
that an investment of $166 million in stormwater projects between 2009-2011 produced an
estimated 2,075 jobs in Los Angeles, CA (Burns & Flaming, 2011). Looking at specific types of green
infrastructure, installing green roofs on 5% of Chicago’s buildings would create almost 8,000 jobs
from an investment of $403 million (Hewes, 2008).
PlaNYC
PlaNYC is a sustainability and resilience plan which consists of 127 initiatives to transform New
York City into a more sustainable and resilient city. The use of green infrastructure (e.g. green
roofs, bioswales, and pervious pavement) was outlined and included in many of the plan’s
programs to address the city’s stormwater issues (PlaNYC, 2014). In 2008, an analysis
anticipated the creation of 266 total jobs from investing $23 million in green roofs and 1,446
direct jobs from a $346 million investment in PlaNYC’s watershed protection programs (The
Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2008).
16
Summaries of policies and incentives are included below, with links to the full text.
Regional/Local
CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NY – Croton-on-Hudson’s Wetlands and Watercourses ordinance protects
wetlands and other natural stormwater management areas in order to prevent water contamination. Croton-
on-Hudson uses this ordinance to establish a Water Control Commission. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/
Model%20Ordinances/misc__wetlands.htm
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, NY – The Town of East Hampton established a Harbor Overlay District to
maintain or improve surface water quality. The district is also intended to maintain or improve wildlife
habitat in these areas and to maintain or restore these waterways as closely as possible to their natural
condition. http://ecode360.com/10414586?highlight=overlay%20districts,overlay%
20district,districts,district,harbors,overlay,harbor#10414586
TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, NY – The Town of North Hempstead, NY established a Stormwater
Control ordinance which requires the consideration and implementation of a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) with any land development activity. Specific on-site retention requirements apply
with any increase in impervious surface area. http://ecode360.com/9298140
ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY – The Save the Rain program is a comprehensive stormwater management plan
intended to reduce pollution to Onondaga lakes and tributaries. This program offers two funding resources
directed toward the owners of private property and other municipalities within the county’s sewer district;
the Green Infrastructure Fund (GIF) and the Suburban Green Infrastructure Program (SGIP). http://
savetherain.us/
TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, NY – Oyster Bay’s Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control
ordinance seeks to establish minimum stormwater requirements and controls to protect and safeguard the
general health, safety, and welfare of the public by reducing stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil
erosion, and nonpoint source pollution through stormwater management practices. http://
ecode360.com/26884711?highlight=stormwater
IV. POLICIES AND INCENTIVES TO CATALYZE THE USE OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
17
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, CT – In 2010, the City of
Bridgeport launched the BGreen 2020 Initiative, a
Sustainability Plan that outlines the policies and
actions to be implemented in the next 10 years to
improve the quality of life, social equity, and economic
competitiveness of the city, while reducing harmful
impacts to the environment. Part of the plan addresses
making improvements to the region’s waterways
through enhanced stormwater management and use
of green infrastructure.
http://www.bgreenbridgeport.org/storage/documents/Bgreen-2020-2013-Progress-Report.pdf
VERNON, CT – The Town of Vernon has made it a policy to required LID to the maximum extent
practicable (MEP) for all projects that fall within current Town regulatory jurisdiction, with the intent
of managing stormwater. In the construction, design, and implementation of various gray
infrastructures, many Zoning and Subdivision Regulations mandate and suggest the use of low impact
development stormwater management practices with the consultation of the Town LID Manual.
http://www.vernon-ct.gov/files/VernonGuidelinesStormWater_2013.pdf
18
Local Case Studies:
PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, LINDENHURST, NY – The Lindenhurst Library is home to Long Island’s
first permeable pavement parking lot. The parking lot is designed with permeable paving stones,
set in-between gravel, which sits atop 4 layers of different sized gravel. The water is able is
infiltrate through the pavement and then the various layers of gravel. This water would otherwise
run-off as polluted stormwater into the Great South Bay. The parking lot also has bio-swales
surrounding the perimeter with drought resistant plants that help to capture rain water to
recharge it into the aquifer. The project was built using $200,000 in stimulus funds, which covered
90% of the construction and engineering costs. To complement the project, solar power is used to
light the parking lot at night.
GREEN BUILDING DESIGN, WESTBURY, NY – The “Yes We Can” Community Center is a
platinum LEED certified building in North Hempstead that utilizes native vegetation, rainwater
collection, permeable paving, recycled water for toilets, a photovoltaic roof, geothermal heating,
and solar trees in the parking lot to decrease environmental impacts and lower energy costs. The
Center now serves as a leader in green infrastructure and energy efficiency on Long Island and has
been featured at several LEED and green infrastructure conferences.
GREEN ROOF INSTALLATION, OLD WESTBURY, NY – A 1,000 foot living green roof was
installed at the SUNY Old Westbury campus only a few days before Superstorm Sandy hit in 2012.
The roof cost $23,000 to install. The roof withstood a direct hit from the Superstom and
successfully drained water and reduced flooding on the campus.
GERARD STREET PARKING LOT, HUNTINGTON, NY – The Town of Huntington has
incorporated 6,020 square feet of bioretention areas as part of the reconstruction of the Gerard
Street Parking Lot to reduce and treat stormwater runoff. The total cost of constructing these
bioretention areas is $262,715, or $43.64 per square foot, representing 18% of the total
construction costs for this project. Stormwater quality benefits include the pretreatment of
stormwater prior to entering waterways and removal of pollutants such as phosphorus, nitrogen,
various dissolved and particulate metals (cadmium, copper, lead, zinc) and some pathogens
(coliform, streptococci, E. Coli). Environmental benefits include the reduction of CO2 emissions
that would be created by manufacturing conventional precast concrete drainage structures;
reduction of the heat-island effect by increasing the amount of landscaping and shade trees; and
utilization of recycled plastics in the manufacture of the HDPE drainage structures and pipes
installed in bioretention areas.
19
National
ANNAPOLIS, MD – The City of Annapolis, MD, raised its Stormwater Utility Fee in 2011, and offers a 50%
discount on this fee if residential or commercial properties install stormwater management structures or
devices on their properties (e.g. green roofs, rain gardens, and infiltration trenches). http://
www.ci.annapolis.md.us/government/city-departments/neighborhood-environmental/stormwater-
management
LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY, TX – The Lake Travis Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Ordinance is aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution in the Lake Travis area (a watershed near Austin,
TX). The Lake Travis watershed is a sub-watershed of the Lower Colorado River. http://
www.stormwatercenter.net/Model%20Ordinances/misc__lake_travis.htm
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD – Montgomery County has a Rainscapes Program that offers rebates to
residential and commercial properties that implement eligible rainscaping techniques to reduce stormwater
pollution. The funding comes from the County’s Water Quality Protection Charge, a tax property owners pay
for the amount of impervious surface on their property. http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DEP/water/
rainscapes.html
NAPA, CA – Napa’s Riparian Habitat ordinance is focused on protecting and restoring native vegetation.
Napa’s ordinance also takes additional measures to prevent streambank hardening which is detrimental to
habitat and accelerates erosion. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/nps-ordinanceuments-a2c-
napa.pdf
RHODE ISLAND – Rhode Island’s program is focused on vegetated coastal zone buffers. Rhode Island seeks
to protect ecologically sensitive areas and prevent contaminated runoff from non-point source pollution.
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/nps-ordinanceuments-a2b-rhode-island.pdf
WASHINGTON, DC – Washington, DC, offers monetary incentives to homeowners who implement
landscape enhancements, such as rain gardens or pervious pavers, which reduce stormwater runoff.
Homeowners apply to the program and receive a free audit to determine the best options for their
properties and the potential incentive amount. http://green.dc.gov/riversmarthomes
20
Since green infrastructure projects provide a variety of benefits beyond simply stormwater management, the
funding required to implement projects may come from a variety of sources, such as those related to
sustainability, community revitalization, urban wildlife habitat, climate mitigation, and climate resilience and
adaptation.
Regional/Local
LONG ISLAND SOUND FUTURES FUND – The Long Island Sound Futures Fund (LISFF) is a competitive
grant program administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In particular, the Clean Waters and
Healthy Watersheds priority area provides funds to, “plan and implement Low Impact Development (LID) and
green infrastructure or green street projects.” http://www.nfwf.org/lisff/Pages/home.aspx#.VBdHGGO5R6I
NEW YORK GREEN INNOVATION GRANT PROGRAM – The New York Green Innovation Grant Program
(GIGP) supports projects across the State of New York that utilize unique stormwater infrastructure design
and create cutting-edge green technologies. GIGP-funded projects may be found from Buffalo to the end of
Long Island, and range from rain gardens to stream "daylighting" projects. http://www.efc.ny.gov/
Default.aspx?tabid=461
SUFFOLK COUNTY DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM – The purpose of the program is to
fund implementation projects that will result in the protection and restoration of surface water quality. This
program was extended 13 years through the use of dedicated sales tax extensions. A portion of the total
revenues generated annually by the sales tax were dedicated to offsetting the costs associated with
implementing environmental programs. http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/conservation_finance/
LESSON_5.htm
V. FUNDING SOURCES
Conscience Bay
In 2012, $1.6 million in grants were awarded to state and local government and community
groups in New York and Connecticut to improve the health of Long Island Sound. (Long Island
Sound Study, 2012). A portion of these funds were allocated to the Conscience Bay Stormwater
Treatment & Wetland Enhancement project in the Village of Old Field. With a grant amount of
$200,000, 35 subsurface infiltration units connected to 4 curbside basins, and 4 bioswales were
installed to treat 194 million gallons of polluted stormwater (National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, 2012).
21
ONONDAGA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND – As part of the Save the Rain Program, the
purpose of the Green Infrastructure Fund is to support the development of green infrastructure and
stormwater mitigation practices on private property. This fund applies to applicants and projects within the
Clinton, Harbor Brook and Midland Combined Sewersheds (CSS). http://savetherain.us/green-improvement-
fund-gif/
SUBURBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM – The Suburban Green Infrastructure Program
supports the development of green infrastructure and stormwater management practices on public property
within the Onondaga County sewer district, but outside of the City of Syracuse. This funding option targets
municipal entities that are considering planning projects to reduce inflow and infiltration to sanitary sewer
systems. http://savetherain.us/sgip/
50/50 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND – This program, funded by the National Fish and Wildlife
Federation Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund, assists landowners in implementing green infrastructure
practices to meet the requirements administered by the City of Binghamton’s Urban Runoff Reduction Plan.
http://www.binghamton-ny.gov/sites/default/files/files/50_50%20Stormwater%20Fund%20Matching%
20Grant%20FAQ.doc__0.pdf
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM – These programs establish a long-term partnership
among local government, community-based organizations, and the State to address local revitalization
issues. On an annual basis, the Department of State solicits grant applications from local governments for
50/50 matching grants that can be used to advance preparation, refinement, or implementation of these
programs. http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/lwrp.html
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROGRAM – This is a competitive, reimbursement program
that directs funds from the New York State Environmental Protection Fund to projects that reduce polluted
runoff, improve water quality, and restore habitat in water systems across New York State. These funds are
available to municipalities, municipal corporations, soil and water conservation districts, and non-profit
corporations. http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/4774.html
Save the Rain
The Onondaga County Save the Rain Green Improvement Fund (GIF) was created for private
property development and redevelopment. Since March 2010, 117 applications have been
submitted for grant funding. 36 projects have been completed and 54 projects are under
contract. There have been 14.2 million gallons of stormwater removed annually from
completed projects.
22
National The US EPA has developed a green infrastructure portal that includes a number of non-federal funding sources
and tools. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_funding.cfm
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS – This program provides loan assistance for wastewater
treatment, stormwater management, nonpoint source abatement, and estuary protection projects. The
revolving nature of the program is maintained with loan repayments, interest, and federal capitalization
grants that are used to fund new projects. http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/green_if.pdf
NATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE COMPETITION – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development will be announcing a national competition that will be funded through the Community
Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBGDR) appropriation provided by the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (PL 113-2). This program funds communities that have been struck by natural
disasters to implement innovative resilience projects to better prepare them for future storms and extreme
weather events. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FactSheet_071514.pdf
ILLINOIS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT PROGRAM – Administered by the Illinois EPA, this program’s
grants are available to local units of government and other organizations to implement green infrastructure to
control stormwater runoff for water quality protection in Illinois. The amount of funding available under this
program is administered as a reimbursement program. http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/financial-assistance/
publications/igig-progress-report.pdf
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COASTAL RESILIENCE PILOT GRANT PROGRAM – Provides financial and
technical support to better understand and implement natural approaches to mitigating coastal and flooding
problems. Grants support the planning, feasibility assessment, design, permitting, construction, and
monitoring/evaluation of green infrastructure projects. Grants are available to 78 municipalities within the
Massachusetts coastal zone. http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/program-areas/stormsmart-coasts/
green-infrastructure-grants/
URBAN WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP GRANTS – This program has partnered with the City’s Community
Challenge Grant Program (CCG) to offer grants for projects which help to manage stormwater using green
infrastructure within San Francisco’s watershed. Grants support the planning, design, and construction of
green infrastructure projects that address stormwater issues as well as provide recreational and education
values to the community. http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=104
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM – This is a flexible program that provides
communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. This program
provides annual grants to local governments and States and is comprised of various sub-programs which
target more specific needs of the regions and local communities (e.g. climate change threats, water quality,
housing availability,etc.) http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/
communitydevelopment/programs
23
Citizens Campaign for the Environment and National Wildlife Federation hosted two workshops in 2014
focused on catalyzing the use of green infrastructure for stormwater management in the Huntington-Harbor
Complex. Included below are ideas that came from these meetings.
Updates to Land Using Planning and Zoning Requirements
& Incentives
Enhance the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) approval process to
incentivize or require green infrastructure
Include incentives for green features in bids
Create model codes and standard
expectations
Develop draft language for municipalities to
incorporate into their comprehensive plans,
LWRP, and streetscape design
Downtown revitalization grants can include
green infrastructure components
Include provisions in SPDES permits
Allow for flexibility in site plans if developers
incorporate green infrastructure
Educate and Recognize Leadership in the Development
Community
Develop upfront guidance for developers
when they apply for a general permit so they
can better understand how their
development plans could incorporate green
infrastructure from the beginning
Create recognition and reward programs for
developers
Charge stormwater fees for impervious
surfaces
VI. ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES
24
Build Greater Public Awareness about Green Infrastructure
Develop communications and outreach plan
Create a green infrastructure tour, create an on-line
version as well, list all of the exemplary projects in
the area (Good examples include the Onondaga
County Program, Save the Rain;Town of Oyster Bay,
North Hempstead; and the City of Bridgeport)
Create a web site and pamphlets to help explain the
opportunities, options, and products that are
available
Collect and communicate about local progress on GI
to towns throughout Long Island
Partner With Schools and Universities Schools present an opportunity for GI projects like food or rain gardens; school parking lots can act as
possible demonstration sites
special construction funding can be available
Universities and Community Colleges could also be good sites for demonstration projects
25
Included below are potential sites that could use green infrastructure to mitigate the area’s stormwater issues, as well as opportunities for partnerships and outreach efforts.
Potential Green Infrastructure Demonstration Sites
VII. OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN HUNTINGTON-HARBOR COMPLEX
Huntington, NY
MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS – Municipal parking lots are one of the leading contributors to
Huntington’s large amount of impervious surfaces, through which rainwater is unable to
infiltrate and percolate into the ground. These parking lots allow an immense amount of
stormwater to run across the surface, washing away pollutants, and nutrients. These sites have
the potential to incorporate permeable pavement with green spaces (e.g. bioswales,
bioretention basins, and rain gardens) to maintain the current level of parking spaces. Even
though the more cost-effective method may lie in removing tar and implementing green
islands, there are products of permeable pavement that use less expensive materials.
RED RESTAURANT – Red Restaurant, located at 417 New York Avenue, Huntington, NY
11743, and its neighboring building have been identified as prospective locations to implement
green roofs and solar panels. Red would gain great visibility as a demonstration site and is just
one of many multi-story redevelopment projects that are being planned in the area. Red’s plan
could be a leading example and be expanded to all other development projects that can
accommodate green roofs. This idea not only mitigates the town’s stormwater issues, but also
prevents the reduction in parking spaces.
MAIN STREET & NEW YORK AVENUE PARKING LANES – One of the biggest issues in the
village is available parking space. One solution that will maintain parking space and mitigate
stormwater issues is to replace the impervious pavement in parking lanes with permeable
pavement. Furthermore, implementing rain gardens in front of rain gutters will allow for
cleaner water to enter gutters when overflow events occur.
26
Opportunities for Partnerships, Outreach, etc.
Key partnerships and outreach efforts were identified as means of advancing the implementation of green
infrastructure. These players include schools and universities, municipalities, and churches.
SCHOOLS & UNIVERSITIES – Not only could a number of green infrastructure techniques be installed
directly on school properties, but schools provide crucial opportunities to educate the local community.
Partnering with universities and colleges can also provide additional educational programs for local schools.
For example, the Cornell Cooperative Extension offers a free educational program about stormwater and
green infrastructure. For elementary schools, they offer an educational component combined with the
hands on activity of building various green infrastructures. Furthermore, local schools that achieve a net zero
environmental impact and ensure the environmental and sustainability literacy of their graduates are
eligible to receive a recognition award from the U.S. Department of Education through National Wildlife
Federation’s Green Ribbon Schools awards program. More information on this program is available. http://
www.nwf.org/Eco-Schools-USA/About-Eco-Schools-USA/Green-Ribbon-Schools.aspx
Huntington Bay, NY
FLEET’S COVE & BAY HILLS BEACH ASSOCIATION – Both of these clubs are particularly
important as demonstration sites because of their visibility to the public, frequent use, and
proximity to Long Island Sound. Each of them have issues related to saltwater intrusion and
runoff and have large impervious parking lots, which can exacerbate runoff issues. Suggestions
for both of these sites include the installation of permeable pavement, bioswales, and tree
boxes to deal with any runoff and decrease the potential for nutrients and pollutants leaching
into Long Island Sound. Implementation of backflow protectors and tide gates could prevent
saltwater intrusion.
Northport, NY
MAIN STREET PARKING LOTS – Bordering Northport Harbor, the Village of Northport has
many large parking lots, with impervious surfaces, directly along the harborfront and all along
Main Street, which runs downhill in the direction of the harbor. The elevation and topography
of this area poses some real challenges in mitigating stormwater issues as large amounts of
water run downhill during major storms. Stormwater collects in these parking lots, increasing
the potential of runoff. It is imperative to capture this stormwater uphill before it reaches the
harborfront. To add to the complexity of this situation, a 4-foot sea level makes any kind of
underground stormwater storage system very difficult to implement. Given these complexities,
many parking lots along Main Street, uphill from the harbor, have been identified as potential
green infrastructure sites to capture the stormwater before it runs downhill into the harbor.
27
CHURCHES – Churches also act as valuable partners because of
their outreach capabilities and the fact that they typically own
parking lots that can act as possible demonstration sites. Much
like schools, churches have the capability to educate and inform
individuals directly within the community and to reach a broad
audience. The Village of Northport is already working with St.
Philip Neri and the Presbyterian Church to install additional catch
basins in their parking lots. Many churches have been identified as
potential sites because their lots are underutilized most days of
the week.
MUNICIPALITIES – A key theme in implementing green infrastructure should be focused on the idea of
connectivity – not only how existing and potential projects interconnect, but also how all of the
municipalities interconnect and work together to manage stormwater. By working together, municipalities
can help mitigate and solve issues related to funding, outreach, education, and recognition. Collaboration
amongst multiple municipalities will help to address the many water quality and stormwater issues of the
area and help us understand how all of the projects fit together to address these issues.
The Inter-municipal Council (Northport, Asharoken, and Huntington) was created to seek out more funding
and to form partnerships with other organizations in order to address many of these issues. Similarly, the
Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor Committee is also composed of representatives from neighboring
municipalities with the goal of creating partnerships to improve the water quality of the watershed on the
North Shore. This committee, in particular, is seeking more representation from residents in the Huntington
Harbor region. There is a great opportunity for these councils and committees to work together to apply for
funds, potentially do group purchasing, and target the most opportune grants available.
Yet, unwillingness to fully embrace green infrastructure is a limiting factor to the fulfillment of these ideas
of connectivity and inter-municipal collaboration. This government push-back against implementation may
be due to the lack of information and understanding of the environmental benefits and funding
opportunities for green infrastructure. One option to improve on this lack of understanding and knowledge
is to hold educational forums to provide this crucial information to government leaders, consultants, and
their staff. Topics to be covered in these forums could
include funding opportunities, discussions on what’s
required to apply for grants and how to effectively
create an appealing grant proposal, teachings on the
steps required to apply for grants, and discussions on
the environmental and financial benefits associated with
green infrastructure. Furthermore, a “Green
Infrastructure Tour” of the area could be held as a
beneficial follow-up event in order for everyone to see
firsthand what is possible. The key is to educate the
leaders in the government who could have the greatest
impact.
28
General Information on Green Infrastructure
EPA GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT – http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/
index.cfm#tabs-1
EPA PLANNING AND MODELING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO)
CONTROL – http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/Greening_CSO_Plans.PDF
FUNDING SOURCES – http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_funding.cfm
Information on School and University Programs
EPA CAMPUS RAINWORKS CHALLENGE – Challenge for undergraduate and graduate students. Once again, EPA
is inviting student teams to design an innovative green infrastructure project for their campus showing how manag-
ing stormwater at its source can benefit the campus community and the environment. http://water.epa.gov/
infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/crw_challenge.cfm
GREEN STREETSCAPES – http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/sustain_plts/reports/Streetscapes_Final_7_31_09.pdf
VIII. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
29
IX. SAMPLE SITE PLAN
30
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
31
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Stormwater Homepage. <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/index.cfm>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. What Is Green Infrastructure? <http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Low Impact Development (LID). <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/>
Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland. "Bioretention Manual." 2007. <http://www.aacounty.org/DPW/Highways/Resources/Raingarden/RG_Bioretention_PG CO.pdf>
Peck, S. and M. Kuhn. 2003. Design Guidelines for Green Roofs. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ontario Association of Architects.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Massachusetts Low Impact Development Toolkit. <http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/LID_Fact_Sheet_-_Permeable_Paving.pdf.>
Clean Water America Alliance. 2011. Barriers and Gateways to Green Infrastructure. <http://www.uswateralliance.org/pdfs/gireport.pdf>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Costs and Benefits of Storm Water BMPs. <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/upload/2006_10_31_guide_stormwater_usw_d.pdf>
Buckley, M., Souhlas, T., Hollingshead, A. 2011. Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure. ECONorthwest. <http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/reports-and-publications/20498-great-lakes-final-2011-1213.pdf>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Landscaping with Native Plants. <http://www.epa.gov/greenacres/conf12_04/conf_knwldge.html>
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2005. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. <http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1446-20490-0539/FEMA511-complete.pdf>
Upstate Forever. Rain Gardens. Low Impact Development Center. <http://upstateforever.org/pdfs/other/CAW_LIDFact_RainGardens.pdf>
Howley, Rick. Retrofitting Urban Stormwater Infrastructure for Treatment and Ecological Enhancement in Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia Water Department. <https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/masrc/MASRC%20PDFs/G_session_web/1_G_Rick%20Howley.pdf>
Clark, M., Acomb, G. Water Resources Roundtable: Low Impact Development and Integrated Management Practices. University of Florida. <http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dwrm/stormwater/stormwater_rule_development/docs/fl_asla_presentation.pdf>
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute. 2004. Glen Brook Green Subdivision, Waterford, Connecticut. <https://www.icpi.org/sites/default/files/ICPIAugust2004NEWp10_13.pdf>
X. LITERATURE CITED
32
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James, P. 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. ScienceDirect. 81 (3), 167-178.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Low Impact Development (LID): A Literature Review. <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/lid.pdf>
Foster, J., Lowe, A., Winkelman, S. 2011. The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation. The Center for Clean Air Policy. <http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf>
Burns, P., Flaming, D. 2011. Water Use Efficiency and Jobs. Economic Roundtable. <http://www.cacoastkeeper.org/document/water-use-efficiency-and-jobs.pdf>
Hewes, W. 2008. Creating Jobs and Stimulating the Economy through Investment in Green Water Infrastructure. American Rivers & Alliance for Water Efficiency. <http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/green-infrastructure-docs/green_infrastructure_stimulus_white_paper_final.pdf>
PlaNYC. 2014. Progress Report 2014. The City of New York. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/140422_PlaNYCP-Report_FINAL_Web.pdf>
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2008. Analysis of Job Creation in PlaNYC Final Report. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2008/pr110_planyc_job_creation_analysis.pdf>
Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center. Wetlands and Watercourses Ordinance. Croton-on-Hudson, NY. <http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Model%20Ordinances/misc__wetlands.htm>
Town of East Hampton, NY. Harbor Protection Overlay District. <http://ecode360.com/10414586?highlight=overlay%20districts,overlay%20district,districts,district,harbors,overlay,harbor%2310414586>
Town of North Hempstead, NY. Stormwater pollution prevention plans. <http://ecode360.com/9298140>
Onondaga County. Save the Rain. Accessed November 12, 2014. <http://savetherain.us/>
Town of Oyster Bay, NY. Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control. <http://ecode360.com/26884711?highlight=stormwater>
BGreen 2020: A Sustainability Plan for Bridgeport, Connecticut. 2013. 2013 Progress Report. <http://www.bgreenbridgeport.org/storage/documents/Bgreen-2020-2013-Progress-Report.pdf>
Town of Vernon. 2013. Low Impact Development Stormwater Quality Manual. <http://www.vernon-ct.gov/files/VernonGuidelinesStormWater_2013.pdf>
The City of Annapolis, Maryland. Stormwater Management and Sediment and Erosion Control. <http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/government/city-departments/neighborhood-environmental/stormwater-management>
Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center. Lake Travis Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Ordinance. Lower Colorado River Authority. <http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Model%20Ordinances/misc__lake_travis.htm>
Montgomery Country, MD: Environmental Protection. What are RainScapes? <http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DEP/water/rainscapes.html>
33
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Ordinance on Riparian Habitat Areas: City of Napa, California. <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/nps-ordinanceuments-a2c-napa.pdf>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Rhode Island Coastal Zone Program. <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/nps-ordinanceuments-a2b-rhode-island.pdf>
District Department of the Environment. RiverSmart Homes. <http://green.dc.gov/riversmarthomes>
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Long Island Sound Futures Fund. <http://www.nfwf.org/lisff/Pages/home.aspx#.VGoLs_nF-Sp>
Long Island Sound Study. 2012. $1.6 Million Awarded for Community-Based Projects to Improve Health of Long Island Sound. <http://longislandsoundstudy.net/2012/09/more-than-1-6-million-awarded-for-community-based-projects-to-improve-health-of-long-island-sound/>
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 2012. Long Island Sound Futures Fund 2012 Project Descriptions. <http://www.nfwf.org/lisff/Documents/lisff_2012_projects.pdf>
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation. Green Grants. <http://www.efc.ny.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=461>
Public Works. Water Quality Protection and Restoration Program. <http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/conservation_finance/LESSON_5.htm>
Save the Rain. Green Improvement Fund (GIF). <http://savetherain.us/green-improvement-fund-gif/>
Save the Rain. Suburban Green Infrastructure Program (SGIP). <http://savetherain.us/sgip/>
City of Binghamton, New York. City of Binghamton 50/50 Stormwater Management Fund. <http://www.binghamton-ny.gov/sites/default/files/files/50_50%20Stormwater%20Fund%20Matching%20Grant%20FAQ.doc__0.pdf>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Funding Opportunities. <http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_funding.cfm>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water State Revolving Fund. <http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/green_if.pdf>
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. National Disaster Resilience Competition. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FactSheet_071514.pdf>
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Illinois Green Infrastructure Grant Program from Stormwater Management Biannual Report. <http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/financial-assistance/publications/igig-progress-report.pdf>
Energy and Environmental Affairs. Green Infrastructure for Coastal Resilience Pilot Grant Program. <http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/program-areas/stormsmart-coasts/green-infrastructure-grants/>
San Francisco Water Power Sewer. Urban Watershed Stewardship Grants. <http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=104>
National Wildlife Federation. Green Ribbon Schools. <http://www.nwf.org/Eco-Schools-USA/About-Eco-Schools-USA/Green-Ribbon-Schools.aspx>
34
Download the Report:
http://bit.ly/1yvO08i
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Long Island Sound Futures Fund, NFWF and the Long Island Sound Study for their generous grant support.
Thank you to our supporting vendors!
Green Solutions to Stormwater Pollution
Managing Stormwater with Natural
Vegetation and Green Methodologies
February 5, 2015 1pm – 4pm
Suffolk County Legislative Building Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY
Green Solutions to Stormwater Pollution
February 5, 2015
1pm – 4pm
Suffolk County Legislative Building
Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY
1:00pm —Welcome
Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone
Dave Calone, Chairman, Suffolk County Planning Commission
Legislator Kara Hahn, Suffolk County Legislature
1:30pm —Presentations
Why we need Green Infrastructure on Long Island
Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director, Citizens Campaign
for the Environment
Assessing Green Infrastructure
Maureen Krudner, Green Infrastructure Coordinator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Green Infrastructure Funding Opportunities and Onondaga
County's Save-the-Rain Program Case Study
Melissa Young, Assistant Director, Syracuse University
Center for Sustainable Community Solutions (CSCS) /
Syracuse Environmental Finance Center (Syracuse EFC)
Sustainable Long Island’s “Reduce Rain Runoff” Initiative
Amy Engel, Executive Director, Sustainable Long Island
2:40pm —Case Examples of Green Infrastructure on Long
Island
Yes We Can Center
Michael Levine, North Hempstead, Commissioner of
Planning
Gerard Street Parking Lot
Nicholas P. Jimenez, Town of Huntington, Assistant Civil
Engineer
Green Roofs
Melissa Daniels, Vice President Plant Connection
Focal Point: High Performance Biofilter
John Markee, VP Sales and Marketing, FABCO Industries,
Inc.
Conscience Bay Restoration
Erin Brosnan, Ecologist/Restoration Specialist, GEI
3:55pm —Closing Remarks
Dominique Kone, Climate & Wildlife Safeguards Intern,
National Wildlife Federation