The KenTucKy Green InfrasTrucTure acTIon Plan for sTormwaTer & weT weaTher sewaGe manaGemenT

lexInGTon suPPlemenTmarch 2014

About the Kentucky Green Infrastructure Action Plan:The KGIAP is a plan adopted by the WWKY in October 2011 to implement green infra-structure strategies and policies across Kentucky. The KGIAP focuses on utilizing WWKY volunteers to promote GI projects and strategies in their communities and influence deci-sion makers to take steps to implement GI. As part of the KGIAP, WWKY and cooperating organizations have hosted GI conferences in Louisville and Lexington.

About the Watershed Watch in Kentucky (WWKY):WWKY is a statewide citizens monitoring effort to improve and protect water quality by raising community awareness, and supporting implementation of the goals of the Clean Water Act and other water quality initiatives. Formed in 1997, WWKY has trained nearly 4,000 volunteers to take water samples across Kentucky.

Acknowledgements:The WWKY and the authors would like to acknowledge and thank the following for their time, assistance, and contribution to this Plan: Dale Reynolds and the WWKY Board of Directors, the eight WWKY local water basin groups across Kentucky, WWKY Science Advisors, Gayle Killam and River Network, Judy Petersen and the Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Dr. Lindell Ormsbee and the Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, Susan Plueger and the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, and the many others who have helped with this Supplement.

The research, drafting, and production of this Plan was made possible through the generous sup-port of the Virginia Environmental Endowment.

About the Authors:Hank Graddy practices law in Versailles, Kentucky. His primary areas of practice include envi-ronmental law and land use/planning and zoning at the administrative, trial and appellate court level. He has presented continuing legal education programs on environmental law and the law of planning and zoning, including Legal Issues Involving Local Government and the Kentucky Environmental Law Update. Hank is a founder, past Chairman and current Vice-Chairman of Wa-tershed Watch in Kentucky, Inc. He was a founder and the project director for the Kentucky River Watershed Watch, Inc., one of the eight local basin programs within WWKY, from formation in 1997 until 2009 and currently serves as a director. His publications include, “Zoning and the Smell of Money” in Bench & Bar, and a chapter in The Essential Agrarian Reader. His article about the Watershed Watch in Kentucky program, titled “Reclaim the River, 15 Years of Monitoring the Wa-ters of Kentucky,” appears in River Voices, Volume 22, No. 1 & 2, 2012.

Randy Strobo is an environmental attorney, consultant, and writer. His environmental law prac-tice spans many issues with a focus on water, air, energy, industrial pollution, eminent domain, and civil rights on the administrative, trial, and appellate levels. Randy has recently served as an environmental consultant at Yale University, Diageo Inc., the Environmental Investigation Agency, the Watershed Watch in Kentucky, and as a Coca-Cola World Fellow at the Centre for Environ-mental Management at North-West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa. He is admitted to all state and federal courts in Kentucky, and currently serves on the Board of Directors of the ACLU of Kentucky. Randy has also published in several publications including the Advocate, Duke Forum for Law and Social Change, and the Yale University Center for Coastal Watershed Systems Journal.

Design and layout by Randy Strobo

List of Abbreviations & Acronyms......................................................01

Executive Summary............................................................................02

Preface...................................................................................................03

Section 1.0 Introduction......................................................................06 Section 1.1 A Brief Natural History........................................................08 Section 1.2 Lexington’s Planning History................................................ 13 Section 1.3 Consent Decree and Stormwater Management......................14 Section 1.4 TMDLs and Watershed Planning............................................19

Section 2.0 Lexington’s Approach for Mitigating Stormwater Impacts........................................................22 Section 2.1 Regulatory Structure for Implementing Green Infrastructure.............................................................23 Section 2.2 Examples of GI Projects in Lexington...................................27 Section 3.0 Green Infrastructure’s Role in Lexington’s Future............................................................................... 48 Section 3.1 The Recommended Actions of the KGIAP: An Evaluation of Lexington.................................................... 48 Section 3.2 Elements of the Lexington GI Action Plan .............................50 Section 3.3 Impact Projects..................................................................54

Section 4.0 Conclusion....................................................................... 56

Appendix...............................................................................................58

Table of Contents

01

BMP: Best Management PracticeCSO: CombinedSewerOverflowCWA: Clean Water ActEPA: United States Environmental Protection AgencyGI: Green InfrastructureKDOW: Kentucky Division of WaterKGIAP: Kentucky Green Infrastructure Action Plan for Stormwater and Wet Weather ManagementKPDES: Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination SystemKWRRI: Kentucky Water Resources Research InstituteKyCAP: Kentucky Citizen Action PlanLID: Low Impact DevelopmentLFUCG: Lexington Fayette Urban-County GovernmentMEP: Maximum Extent PracticableMS4: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer SystemMSD: Louisville Metropolitan Sewer DistrictNPDES: National Pollution Discharge Elimination SystemNRC: National Research CouncilNRDC: Natural Resources Defense CouncilPOTW: Publicly Owned Treatment WorksSSO: SanitarySewerOverflowSWMP: Storm Water Management PlanTMDL: Total Maximum Daily LoadVEE: Virginia Environmental EndowmentWWKY: Watershed Watch in Kentucky, Inc.

List of Abbreviations & Acronyms

02

Executive SummaryFollowing the submittal of the Kentucky Green Infrastructure Action Plan for Stormwater and Wet Weather Sewage Management (KGIAP) for approval to the WWKY, WWKY and River Network applied for and received a grant from Virginia Environmental Endowment (VEE) to host a Green Infrastructure Conference in Lexington with River Network and to draft and produce this Lexington Supplement to the KGIAP. The KGIAP was adopted by the WWKY to promote the implementation of green infrastructure and low impact de-velopment across Kentucky. As a supplement to the KGIAP, this report serves as a me-morialization of the 2013 Advancing Green Infrastructure Conference in Lexington, and further explores green infrastructure in the Lexington, starting with the natural history of the area and ending with proposals for moving forward.

This Lexington Supplement evaluates the implementation of green infrastructure (GI) and low impact development (LID) in the City of Lexington and Fayette County, Kentucky. The Supplement begins with a history of Fayette County including: the natural history of the area, the development and planning history of Lexington including Town Branch and the use and protection of Lexington’s waters. Next, the various ordinances, regula-tions, manuals, permits, watershed plans, agreements, and other planning and regulatory documents in Lexington are surveyed, denoting where green infrastructure is considered and implemented. The Supplement then examines current, past and future green infra-structure projects, funding of those projects, and the incorporation of green infrastructure in Lexington’s stormwater management and regulatory program.

The Supplement highlights several current and past green infrastructure projects in the Lexington area along with the design and engineering firms that developed each project. The Supplement evaluates how the Recommended Actions of the KGIAP apply to Lex-ington, making suggestions to fill the gaps outlined in the KGIAP. Finally, steps forward are suggested to make Lexington a national leader in green infrastructure implementation and development.

While Lexington has made strides to incorporate green infrastructure, implementation is still in its infancy. If Lexington leverages the current enthusiasm for green infrastructure to solve its stormwater management issues, beautify the city, save money, and spur innova-tion, Lexington can become a leader in green infrastructure and an example for others across the nation.

03

Through several special educational sessions and field outings in connection with board meetings, WWKY and representatives of NRDC met with officials from Northern Ken-tucky, Louisville MSD, Lexington LFUCG, Bowling Green, and Owensboro to discuss ways to implement green infrastructure across the state. As a result of those discussions, WWKY contracted to draft and produce the Kentucky Green Infrastructure Action Plan for Stormwater and Wet Weather Sewage Management (KGIAP). The Report received final approval from WWKY in October 2012.

WWKY, River Network, and NRDC, among others, also organized an Advancing Green Infrastructure Conference in Louisville in September 2012. A Louisville Supplement to the GI Report was discussed, but it was decided by WWKY to forego the drafting of a Louisville Supplement at that time. In the meantime, the WWKY applied for and received a grant from VEE to host a Green Infrastructure Conference in Lexington with River Net-work and to draft and produce this Lexington Supplement to the GI Report.

The Advancing Green Infrastructure in Lexington Conference took place at Locust Trace AgriScience Farm in Lexington, Kentucky, on October 10, 2013. The agenda for the con-ference can be found at Appendix 1. The Conference began with a keynote from Lexing-ton Mayor Jim Gray, who began the conversation discussing Lexington’s commitment to green infrastructure and the progress it has made. Hank Graddy then led the discussion on conference structure and outcomes, and Dr. Lindell Ormsbee closed out the introduc-tion with a brief overview of green infrastructure.

The first plenary featured Susan Plueger, P.E., from the LFUCG Division of Water Qual-ity. Ms. Plueger discussed the history of stormwater management in Fayette County, ex-plained how the GI program in Lexington currently functions, and gave several examples of GI projects in Fayette County. The second plenary presented the “State of the State” of GI in Kentucky. The panel featured Scott Southall, who presented his firm’s GI project in Frankfort, John Carman, who presented his firm’s GI project on East Market Street in Louisville, and John Webb, who presented on the Kentucky Division of Water’s 319 grant program and the various GI projects that program has funded across Kentucky.

The Conference also held two rounds of breakout sessions. The first session consisted of five breakout groups. The first breakout group featured Dr. Ormsbee who went in depth on GI basics. The second breakout group featured Scott Southall and Eric Larsen, and focused on business and institutional GI projects in Lexington. The third breakout group featured Chris Dent of the LFUCG and Kara Sayles of Bluegrass Greensource who dis-cussed residential GI in Lexington. The fourth breakout group featured Susan Plueger, and Jim Duncan and Jimmy Emmons, both from LFUCG Division of Planning, who pre-sented on GI in planning and zoning regulation and enforcement. The fifth breakout group was a tour of the Locust Trace facility focusing on the various GI elements of the school.

The second breakout session consisted of three breakout groups. The first group fea-tured Hank Graddy and Hal Sprague, and focused on what Lexington can achieve with GI in the future. The second group featured Scott Southall and Robert Hewitt, who discussed the renovation of the Franklin County Courthouse and the use of 319 funds to utilize GI elements in and around the renovated courthouse. Brandi Berryman focused on the day-

PREFACE

04

lighting of Town Branch in downtown Lexington. The third group was a repeat tour of the Locust Trace property.

The third plenary session featured Hal Sprague of the Center for Neighborhood Technol-ogy headquartered in Chicago. Mr. Sprague presented on his organization’s work regard-ing the green infrastructure portfolio standard.

The other featured keynote, Christine McKay, a representative of the U.S. EPA, was scheduled to present on EPA support for GI in Kentucky. Unfortunately, she was unable to attend as a result of the federal government shutdown.

The Conference ended with the fourth plenary, a panel discussion of Lexington’s goals for GI in the future. Several people commented on the NRDC’s Green Emerald city rat-ings, and how Lexington should aspire to be a green emerald city. Hank Graddy and Hal Sprague discussed what it would mean to implement a GI portfolio standard in Lexington and to obtain no net loss in permeability. Also discussed was the stormwater runoff reten-tion exception for rehabilitated property in Lexington. In conclusion, most agreed that Lex-ington has made a promising start implementing GI. Most conference attendees agreed that If Lexington continues its course by using innovative ideas such as a GI standard portfolio, or aspires to achieve the NRDC’s full green emerald rating, Lexington will be-come a leading city in the country for GI and stormwater management.

By summarizing the issues discussed at the Lexington Conference, exploring the history, current status, and future aspirations of green infrastructure in Lexington, and applying the KGIAP to Lexington, this Supplement serves as an example of how green infrastruc-ture can be used in a major metropolitan area in Kentucky to solve its stormwater prob-lems using sustainable, citizen based strategies.

05South Limetone bioretention cells, Lexington, Kentucky

Photo Credit: Andrew Stoeckinger

06

Section 1.0 | Introduction

July 2012

The Kentucky Green Infrastructure Action Plan was adopted by the WWKY to promote the implementation of green infrastructure and low impact development across Kentucky. Since its adoption, the WWKY has hosted regional conferences in Louisville and Lexing-ton on the advancement of green infrastructure in those communities. This Supplement serves as a memorialization of the 2013 Advancing Green Infrastructure Conference in Lexington. This Supplement also further explores green infrastructure in the Lexington, starting with the natural history of the area and ending with proposals for moving forward.

This Supplement to the KGIAP evaluates the progress that the City of Lexington has made with the implementation of green infrastructure (GI) and low impact development (LID). The Supplement begins with the natural history of the area, noting the unique karst, prairie/woodland history, and fertile soils of Fayette County. A development and planning history of Lexington is then explored, with a focus on Town Branch and the use and protection of Lexington’s waters. Next, a survey of the various ordinances, regula-tions, manuals, permits, watershed plans, agreements, and other planning and regulatory documents is conducted, taking into account where and when green infrastructure is dis-cussed, analyzed, and suggested as a strategy to combat Lexington’s stormwater issues.

The Supplement then examines what Lexington is currently doing to implement green infrastructure including current, past and future green infrastructure projects, funding of those projects, and the incorporation of green infrastructure in Lexington’s stormwater management and regulatory program. Several examples of green infrastructure projects are given, along with the design and engineering firms that developed each project. The last section evaluates how the Recommended Actions of the KGIAP apply to Lexington, making suggestions to fill the gaps outlined in the KGIAP. Finally, suggested steps for-ward are suggested to make Lexington a national leader in green infrastructure imple-mentation and development.

07

View of Lexington, Wilson Family Photographic Collection, Special Collections, University of Kentucky.

08

Section 1.1 | A Brief Natural History of LexingtonPlaces are unique. In order to understand why certain policies and land uses have evolved over the course of several hundred years, it is important to understand the natural history of the area and how it was developed. The natural history of Lexington evolved from a tropical sea to a highly urbanized environment, impacting how Lexington’s topography, soils, watersheds, and built environment deal with the water and waste that climate and extensive urbanization bring to a landscape.

Lexington falls within the Interior Low Plateau physiographic province of the eastern Unit-ed States. This province extends from northern Alabama through Tennessee and north through Ohio, occupying the midsection of Kentucky along the way. It is composed of a series of plateaus, basins and domes often separated by steep escarpments. The Inte-rior Low Plateau province is further comprised of five natural regions: the Owensboro/Lowlands/Ohio River Floodplain, Shawnee Hills, Highland Rim, the Knobs, and the Blue-grass. Lexington is found in the Bluegrass region. The Bluegrass is associated with an ancient, eroded limestone dome and is composed of rolling hills and entrenched, cliff lined rivers and streams.1

The geological history of Lexington is also important to understanding the hydrology of the area. Present day Lexington was located south of the equator 445 to 490 million years ago and was covered by a shallow tropical sea. Ordovician-age limestones were formed during that time and are currently the oldest exposed rocks in Kentucky. A massive re-gional uplift bent the earth’s crust upward in central Kentucky, known as the Cincinnati Arch, causing accelerated erosion of the younger rocks above, exposing the older Ordo-vician rocks quicker than in other parts of the state. The palisades of the Kentucky River in Raven Run are examples of these Ordovician rocks.2

The geological history also explains the unique karst system of the area. During a period 300-360 million years ago, known as the Carboniferous Period, there was substantial geological change in the Lexington area. Lexington experienced a tropical climate at the time, allowing marine organisms with calcium carbonate shells to thrive, As they died, they formed highly porous limestone layers hundreds of feet thick resulting in the karst systems that are prevalent throughout Kentucky today. Ordovican-age limestones of cen-tral Kentucky are also rich in phosphorous and calcium. The soils formed in these karst areas are well drained and fertile, resulting in ideal agricultural conditions.3

Kentucky’s state surface waters include over 90,000 miles of streams and more than 229,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs.4 Lexington, like the rest of Kentucky, also has substantial water resources. Lexington is within the Kentucky River Watershed and can be further subdivided into nine smaller watersheds: Boone Creek, Cane Run, North Elk-horn Creek, South Elkhorn Creek, East Hickman Creek, West Hickman Creek, Kentucky River, Town Branch, and Wolf Run Creek. Groundwater is also important to the area, as it supports rare subterranean species in the karst and contains an extensive network of underground streams. Surface waters are usually filtered through soil and rock before

1 Abernathy, Greg et al., Kentucky’s Natural Heritage: An Illustrated Guide to Biodiversity. Lexington: UK Press, 2010. Print. 2 Id.3 Id.4 Id.

09

reaching the groundwater, however the karst terrain in central Kentucky allows for direct mixing as well.

Currently, Kentucky is located in the southeastern interior of North America creating a mild mid latitude climate with a large seasonal range of temperatures tempered by its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. Annual precipitation is moderate (40-50 inches annually) with Spring being the wettest time of year and fall the driest.5

The first people arrived in Kentucky at least 12,000 years ago, living in small groups hunting megafauna like mastodons, bison, and giant sloths. Those megafauna eventu-ally became extinct, and humans switched to hunting bison, elk and deer and then to smaller game such as wild turkey, rabbit, squirrel, mussels, and fish. The open meadows and woodlands of the Bluegrass region were maintained primarily by fires set by native people. Agriculture eventually developed, as Kentucky is believed to be within one of the five regions of the world to develop agriculture independently. Fertility was maintained through slash and burn and flooding. Settlements began to from around the floodplains of streams and rivers consisting of several hundred to a few thousand inhabitants. How-ever, in the late 1600s, European diseases such as small pox arrived in the areas. By 1750, most native populations were decimated and Kentucky was being used primarily as a hunting ground. The prairies, forests, and open fields openings became invaded by trees and thickets. When western settlers arrived in Kentucky, it was about 85% forested. Prairie and woodland made up most of the remainder including the Lexington area.6 In 1784, John Filson described an area around Elkhorn Creek:

There are many canebrakes so thick and tall that it is difficult to pass through them. Where no cane grows there is abundance of wild rye, clover, and buffalo grass, covering vast tracts of country, and affording excellent food for cattle. The fields are covered with abundance of wild herbage not common to other countries.7

Over the past 200 years, intensive land management has altered the landscape, with very little native habitat remaining.8

Water was central to the founding of Lexington by western settlers. Lexington, or the “Athens of the West”, began in 1779 as a wilderness fortress on the Town Branch, a fork of Elkhorn Creek.9 Town Branch was too small for navigation, but provided a water to the early settlers. Town Branch ran from east to west and flowed north to south with a small gradual rise through karst topography.

A plat drawn in 1780 laid out a commons area adjacent to Town Branch with a central area of nine blocks along the Town Branch plain and several blocks north and south of the central grid.10 Like most growing, bustling towns at the time, the central feature of the plan

5 Id.6 Id.7 Id.8 LFUCG 2007 Comprensive Plan at 110.9 Id. at 288.10 Klotter, James C., and Daniel Rowland, eds. Bluegrass Renaissance: The History and Cul-ture of Central Kentucky, 1792-1852. Lexington: UK Press, 2013. Print.

10

was the courthouse square. Almost immediately, flooding from Town Branch impacted the early settlers, and the first of many straightening and canalization projects began before the turn of the century. As the town center continued to grow and streets were built, the many tributaries and Town Branch itself would eventually be filled and covered.11 Town Branch was also severely polluted and by the 1870s, Town Branch was, as one early Lex-ingtonian lamented, “the little sickly, nauseating, dried up stream, draining its filthy waters under our present market house.”12

Lexington continued to grow into five distinct sectors. The central Town Branch sector became the downtown. The sector immediately north of downtown developed into a resi-dential/educational area, including Transylvania Seminary, which officially gained univer-sity status in 1799 and gave Lexington its “Athenian” feel. The eastern sector of town housed the elite of Lexington, developing into suburban estates and farms and occupy-ing the clean, upstream portion of Town Branch. The southern sector was mainly agri-cultural, occupying the vast, rich farmland of the Bluegrass Region. The western sector received the upstream pollution of town branch of Lexington’s elite, harnessing its power for energy and manufacturing. Lexington Cemetery was built in the western sector in an attempt to shield the manufacturing center with the bucolic features of the cemetery. Lex-ington reached its zenith by the second decade of the nineteenth century when the rise of steamboats focused the development on river cities such as Cincinnati and Louisville.13 Not until railroads came to Lexington in the 1850s did Lexington start to experience fur-ther significant growth and development.

11 Merkin, Zina. “The Disappearance of Town Branch”. Town Branch Trail, Nov. 2001. Web. 10 Jan. 2014. 12 Id. 13 Klotter, supra.

Northern States Contracting Company (City of Lexington, old town branch at Limestone, looking East, contract no. 2),, 1935, Collection on Lafayette Studios, University of Kentucky Archives.

11

Towards the end of the 19th Century, Lexington continued to grow, necessitating public improvement projects such as paving streets and sidewalks with brick, expanding the town’s water supply, and installing street lighting. Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant, Lexington’s first sewage treatment plant, was built in 1919, a modern marvel at the time. A series of floods in 1928 and 1932 motivated Lexington to undertake a project to expand storm sewer capacity. Both storm and sanitary system improvements were con-structed through downtown Lexington with assistance from Federal grants supplied as part of Depression era relief efforts.14

By the middle of the 20th Century, most, if not all, of Lexington’s downtown streams were filled, straightened, covered or channelized; topography was flattened, and a complex and poorly planned system of sanitary sewers, stormwater sewers, and other gray infra-structure emerged. By 1960, 60% of Lexington’s current sewer infrastructure was con-structed of mainly vitrified clay that has since been converted to PVC.15 While Lexington mostly constructed sanitary sewers separate from stormwater sewers, cross connections did occur, and after years of stormwater infiltration through various vectors, flooding, poor drainage, and other sanitary sewer issues, the U.S. EPA sued Lexington to fix their storm-water and sanitary sewer issues resulting in a Consent Decree settlement in 2006.

Today, Lexington-Fayette County measures 285 square miles, with a developing urban core of 85 square miles, surrounded by 200 square miles of rural land. As Lexington ex-panded, more waterways succumbed to the waste, pollution, and alteration suffered by Town Branch. More sewers were built. This caused the foregoing of natural infiltration, transpiration, and evaporation processes in exchange for direct water movement, both treated and untreated, through Lexington’s sewer system and into streams. As a result, all of Fayette County’s major watersheds are impaired from stormwater and stormwater runoff.

14 Merkin, supra.15 Kenter, Peter. “Keeping the End in Mind.” Municipal Sewer & Water. Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Jan 2014.

Flooding on Main St. in 1932. Credit: Town Branch Trail, Inc., available at http://www.townbranch.org/explore/historic-photos/index.htm

12

Old Lemons Mill Rd

Harp Innis RdMt H

oreb

Pike

Huffm

an M

ill Pike

Iron Works Pike

Spurr RdN Yarna

llton P

ik e

Bryan S

tation Rd

Georgetown Rd

Newtown Pike

Leestown Rd

Old Frankfort Pike

Redd Rd

Elkchester Rd

Briar Hill Rd

Rice R

d

Versailles Rd

Haley RdParkers Mill Rd

Man O War Blvd

Harrodsburg Rd

N Cl

evela

nd R

d

Military Pike

Nich

olasv

ille R

d

Todds Rd

Athens Boonesboro Rd

Tates Creek Rd

Walnu

t Hill R

d

Delong Rd Old Richmond Rd

Jack

s Cree

k Pi

ke

Jacks Creek Pike

Spears

Rd

Scott County

Woo

dfor

d Co

unty

Jessamine County

Clark County

BourbonCounty

Madison County

IsIq

Is

Iq

Ir

Qw

Qw

It

It

Ir

!"n$!"o$

Ip

Ip

!"o$

!"n$Ru

ssell

Cav

e Rd

Russ

ell Ca

ve R

d

Harps

For

k Creek

Goose Cre ek

Gree

nwich

Pike

Goose Creek

North

Elkhorn

Creek

Avon Branch

Paris Pike

Avon Bran ch

Cane Run

Town Branch

Ca ne Run

Town Branch

Steeles Run

Manchester BranchSouth Elkhorn Creek

Shannon Run

Ca ve Creek

Vaughn's Branch

Wol f Run

Clemens Run

Sout h E lkhorn Cr eek

Davis Fork

David Creek

Nort h E

lkho rn Creek

Bry

an S

ta

tio

n Cre

ek

Richmond Rd

Ma n O W

ar B lv

d

Mary R

eynolds C reekJones Creek

Boo

ne C

reek

Downing Tr ibutary

Wilson

Mill CreekWest

H ickm

an C

re

ek

East Hic km

an Creek

Ba ughman Fork

Shelby Branch

Boggs F ork

Elk Lick Creek

Raven R

un

Mar

ble Creek

Kentucky

River

LakeEllerslie

Reservoir#2

Reservoir#3

JacobsonReservoir

LFUCG: GIS Section

0 2 41Miles

© 2

010

LFU

CG

Watershed

Boone Creek

Cane Run

East Hickman

Kentucky River

North Elkhorn

South Elkhorn

Town Branch

West Hickman

Wolf Run

Urban Service Area

This figure was prepared by LFUCG staff based upon stream impairments listed in the Final 2008 Integrated Report to Congress on the Condition of Water Resources in Kentucky, Vol. I and II, Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet. Listed stormwater pollutants can be cross-referenced to typical water quality BMP design criteriafor pollutant removal as follows:

FIGURE 1. Watersheds with Impaired Streams in Fayette County.

• Organic Enrichment• Bacteria• Sediments, TSS• Nutrients• Total Dissolved Solids

= Biological/Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), low Dissolved Oxygen, organic material (leaves, grass, pet waste)= Bacteria, Fecal coliform, E-coli, pet waste, farm animal waste= Total Suspended Solids (TSS), sediments, bank erosion= Nitrogen or compounds, Phosphorus or compounds, fertilizers, etc.= TDS

BOONE CREEK WATERSHED- Bacteria- Nutrients- Organic Enrichment- Sediments, TSS- Total Dissolved Solids

KENTUCKY RIVER WATERSHED(No stormwater related impairments)

EAST HICKMAN WATERSHED- Bacteria- Nutrients

NORTH ELKHORNWATERSHED - Bacteria- Nutrients- Organic Enrichment- Sediments, TSS- Total Dissolved Solids

WOLF RUN WATERSHED- Bacteria- Nutrients

SOUTH ELKHORNWATERSHED- Nutrients- Organic Enrichment- Sediments, TSS- Total Dissolved Solids

WEST HICKMAN WATERSHED- Nutrients- Organic Enrichment- Sediments, TSS

TOWN BRANCHWATERSHED- Bacteria- Nutrients- Organic Enrichment

CANE RUN WATERSHED- Bacteria- Nutrients- Organic Enrichment- Sediments, TSS

13

In order to deal with this ever increasing expansion burden, Lexington formed its first planning commission in 1928. The Planning Commission consisted of seven members, including the Mayor, the Commissioner of Public Works, the County Road Engineer, three appointed members from the City, and one appointed member from the County. The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the first Subdivision Control Regulations in 1929, and the first Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the Board of City Commissioners in 1930. This first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1931.

The Planning Commission went through several iterations through 1974, when the Lex-ington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission was created by charter under the newly merged City of Lexington-Fayette County form of government and consisted en-tirely of lay members. Membership on the Planning Commission increased from eight members to its current eleven in 1986.

In 1958, the Commission defined and established the first Urban Service Area in the United States, which outlined the location of urban growth by dividing the county into an Urban Service Area, where development is encouraged, and a Rural Service Area, where urban-oriented activities are not permitted. Areas of future growth within the Urban Ser-vice Area were identified so that complex urban services and facilities, public and private, could be developed logically and economically. However, Lexington’s implementation and regulation of the urban services boundary, and the land outside of the boundary, has been criticized for its lack of foresight, where it has caused substantial sprawl and suburbaniza-tion directly outside Fayette County.16 The Comprehensive Plan was amended or updated in 1947, 1958, 1967, 1973, 1980, 1988, 1996, 2001 and again in 2007, which for the first time included a section on green infrastructure. Lexington is currently drafting, revising, and formalizing the latest version of its Comprehensive Plan.

Lexington has also developed several other plans for development and growth manage-ment. The Expansion Area Master Plan (EAMP) (1996) was developed in response to development pressures in the area and the expansion of the Urban Service Area bound-ary, and is intended to provide lands for development and conservation in the designated planning areas. The Greenspace Plan was developed in 1994 to protect the unique iden-tity of Lexington and Fayette County’s green spaces into recommendations for public and private action. The Rural Service Area Land Management Plan (RLMP) (2001) was developed to define areas in the County appropriate for development and areas to be preserved in perpetuity. Lexington’s PDR program was developed in 2001 to help with the purchase of development rights for conservation. Several Small Area Plans have also been adopted for various sectors of Lexington to provide more specific long term planning for smaller areas of the city.

Until the 2007 Comprehensive Plan was adopted, Lexington did little stormwater and wet weather management planning, and never required or even promoted green infrastruc-ture as a viable alternative to traditional infrastructure. That all changed in 2006 when the U.S. EPA filed a lawsuit against the LFUCG for failure to properly maintain their sewer systems, resulting in thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act.

16 Gentry, B., R. Strobo, and D. Oppenheimer. Optimizing Private Land Conservation and Public Land Use Planning/Regulation. New Haven: Yale FES, 2011.

Section 1.2 | Lexington’s Planning History

14

In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) instituted an action against the city of Lexington for violation of the Clean Water Act.17 The suit sought penalties against the city and required the city to take certain actions to become compliant with Section 309 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Commonwealth of Kentucky joined in that suit claiming that the City of Lexington violated KRS 224 and the accompanying regulations. Specifically, the EPA noted 111 recurring locations at which sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and unpermitted discharges occurred as well as unpermitted bypasses of sec-ondary wastewater treatment facilities and discharges of pollutants in excess of state allowances, also known as “exceedances”. These occurrences were violations of both the CWA and the Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permit is-sued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to the city of Lexington to operate its wastewater treatment systems. This means that the city of Lexington was allowing raw sewage to discharge into waterways in and around Fayette County either through insufficient treat-ment or because of sewer overflows during periods of high rainfall. According to Busi-ness Lexington, “36.5 million gallons of raw sewage spilled annually into the environment between 2001 and 2006 at the South Elkhorn sewage pump station. . . [and] [d]uring that same time span, the East Hickman pump station . . . had yearly overflows amounting to about 6 million gallons.”18

The suit by the EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky against the city of Lexington re-sulted in the issuance of the Consent Decree under which Lexington currently operates. A Consent Decree is a legal agreement among the city, state and federal governments that requires a local government to comply with specific standards, benchmarks and goals in mind. The Consent Decree for the city of Lexington required that the city fix the problems with the SSOs and other storm water related issues in the next 11-13 years by address-ing three main issues: the sanitary sewer system, the stormwater sewer system, and the implementation of several Supplemental Environmental Projects - one of which is to promote and develop green infrastructure projects. Specifically, the Consent Decree mandates:

(1) eliminate all recurring SSOs and bypasses;(2) fix existing and insufficient pump stations;(3) design and construct a new system wide assessment of the sanitary sewer system;(4) use that assessment to determine which methods of repair are applicable;(5) complete system capacity assessments to predict future needs;(6) update the city ordinances to reflect the requirements of the consent decree; and(7) conduct monthly assessments and regular inspections.

The goal is that “[t]his Consent Decree requires the LFUCG to develop, submit, final-ize and implement plans for the continued improvement of its wastewater collection and transmission system and the [wastewater treatment plans], to eliminate Recurring SSOs,

17 Straub, Susan, Consent Decree at a Glance (19 Feb. 2008), http://www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3573.18 Wood, Campbell, “EPA Decrees New Rules for Developers”, Business Lexington (12 Mar. 2012), http://bizlex.com/2012/03/epa-decrees-new-rules-for-developers/.

Section 1.3 | Consent Decree and Stormater Management

15

16

Unpermitted Discharges, Unpermitted Bypasses, and Exceedances.”19

In addition to the fines imposed on the city of Lexington at the time the Consent Decree was entered, the Consent Decree itself set forth penalties the city would have to pay in the event that the Consent Decree was not followed. Initially the city was fined $425,000. Deviations from the Consent Decree would incur further penalties.

In addition to the remedial measure the city of Lexington was required to implement, the Consent Decree also directed the city to undertake two Supplemental Environmental Pro-jects (SEPs): the Coldstream Park Stream Corridor Restoration and Preservation SEP and the Green Infrastructure SEP.

Under the Coldstream Park SEP, the city of Lexington was required to dedicate a mini-mum of one million dollars to improve stream bank stabilization, habitat restoration and greenway creation in Coldstream Park in the Cane Run watershed. This location earned the attention of the EPA because of erosion on the UK research farm. The erosion had harmed stream quality not only by sedimentation but also by reducing vegetative mate-rial, which would slow water runoff into stream ways increasing stream turbulence during rain fall events.

The Consent Decree, while not specifically labelling this measure as Green Infrastruc-ture, required the city to use green infrastructure concepts to treat stormwater runoff. By improving water infiltration before the runoff reaches the stream bank, the city would be able to better manage floodplains and also reduce pollutants entering the waterway, which ultimately feeds the aquifer containing Georgetown’s drinking water.

Under the Green Infrastructure SEP, the city of Lexington was required to dedicate a mini-mum of two hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($230,000) to implement “one or more green infrastructure projects for management of wet weather flows in urban areas.”20

The SEP defines green infrastructure as “an approach to managing stormwater that uti-lizes natural or engineered systems that mimic natural landscapes to capture, cleanse and reduce stormwater runoff through plant, soil and microbial processes.”21 The Consent Decree allowed the city of Lexington to identify the GI projects after the Consent Decree and does not provide any mandates or requirements. The Decree does list possible projects such as swales, bioretention, green roofs, rain gardens, or pervious pavement. The Consent Decree did not require the city to plan a city-wide GI program but only required site specific projects around the urban area which would be proposed to and approved by the EPA.

19 Lexington/EPA Consent Decree, available at http://www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx?page=840.20 Id.21 Id.

17

The Consent Decree also specifically found that the city of Lexington’s MS4 permitting program was inadequate to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent possible as required by the CWA. MS4 is an acronym for municipal separate storm water sewer systems. It is used to mean a system of collecting and transporting stormwater which is owned by a city or other governmental unit. In order to prevent waterway pol-lution, cities must be granted a KPDES permit and develop a stormwater management program. The MS4 program contains nine elements. These elements incude:

(1) Public Education and Outreach (2) Public Involvement and Participation (3) Illicit Discharge Detention and Elimination (4) Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control (5) Pollution Prevention Residential and Commercial Areas (i.e. post-construction controls) (6) Pollution Prevention in Municipal Operations (7) Industrial Facility and Municipal Waste Facility Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs (8) Water Quality Monitoring Program (9) Reporting and Recordkeeping

The Consent Decree required the city of Lexington to implement a Storm Water Quality Management Program (SWQMP) which is a part of Lexington’s KPDES permit related to MS4. The program includes 167 measurable goals in order to determine whether or not the city is effectively reducing pollution levels in stormwater. While the SWQMP imposed conditions on Lexington itself, it also empowered Lexington to:

(1) Assess penalties for violations of its program on individuals; (2) Issue stop work orders for construction activities violating the program; (3) Compel certain commercial and industrial facilities to implement storm water prevention plans; (4) Compel individuals with water retention/detention basins to maintain storm water controls; (5) Compel elimination of illegal connections to MS4s; and (6) Complete the storm sewer system inventory.

The management program divided the city’s sewers into three groups for purposes of management and monitoring: (1) West Hickman, East Hickman, and Wolf Run; (2) Cane Run and Town Branch; and (3) North Elkhorn and South Elkhorn. These divisions are meant to facilitate the collection of raw data and the development of individualized man-agement programs which focus on each area’s problems.

The SWQMP also requires the LFUCG to “have a goal of identifying and removing any legal impediments to, and facilitating the use of ‘green infrastructure’ alternatives, to man-aging post-construction stormwater, such as infiltration, reuse, and evapotranspiration,” including the development low impact development guidelines for new development and

18

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

redevelopment within three years of the issuance of the MS4 permit.22 The LID Guidelines were issued in September 2012. Unfortunately, these are just guidelines, and there is no requirement that developers use green infrastructure in their projects.

As explained in the KGIAP, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are established for

22 LFUCG Stormwater Management Low Impact Development Guidelines, avaialble at http://www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=21984.

19

water bodies that do not meet federal water quality standards due to excessive amounts of particular pollutants. This CWA tool establishes the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged from point or non-point source discharges without exceeding the water quality standards of each state. If a municipality discharges stormwater with pol-lutant loads exceeding its wasteload allocation, then that municipality may be required to implement structural and/or non-structural Best Management Practices to mitigate these impacts. TMDLs typically outline the natural features of the subject waterway and the surrounding area both speculating on likely sources of pollution and assessing natural filtration processes or lack thereof. Some TMDLs expressly endorse and encourage the use of green infrastructure as a Best Management Practice while others simply direct the use of BMPs in general.

Watershed Plans, on the other hand, typically take the information provided in a TMDL and provide a more detailed plan or strategy for implementing the BMPs called for in the TMDL. While TMDLs are drafted and approved by governmental agencies, watershed plans are often written by non-governmental organizations whether citizen or professional groups. Watershed plans are more localized and site specific while TMDLs are water-shed-wide. Watershed Plans may or may not encourage the implementation of Green Infrastructure.

The following provides a rundown of the watersheds in Fayette County and their impair-ments. Every watershed in Fayette County is impaired, but not always for the same pollut-ant. The table also includes those watersheds that have watershed plans, and whether or not green infrastructure is recognized as a strategy for attaining designated uses. While some plans mention green infrastructure, much more can be done to implement green infrastructure as a cost efficient method of cleaning and reducing runoff into impaired streams.

Section 1.4 | TMDLs and Watershed Planning

20

STREAM IMPAIRMENT TMDL WATERSHED PLAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Baughman Fork Nutrients and Or-ganic Enrichment

Approved 2000 Kentucky River Basin Management Plan

TMDL makes no reference to GI or to GI activities

Boone Creek Nutrients Pending but some-what included in Baughman Fork TMDL

Kentucky River Basin Management Plan

Cane Run Fecal Coliform and E. Coli

Approved 2013 Cane Run and Royal Spring Watershed-Based Plan

Kentucky Horse Park is undertak-ing stream restora-tion through use of green infrastructure such as no-mow zones where trees have been planted and management of riparian buffers. The Watershed Based Plan recommends use of GI to improve water quality

David Fork E. Coli PendingEast Hickman Fecal Coliform Pending Kentucky River Basin

Management PlanNorth Elkhorn E. Coli Pending Kentucky River Basin

Management PlanDraft TMDL makes no reference to GI nor to GI activities

South Elkhorn/Town Branch/Wolf Run

Fecal Coliform and E. Coli

Approved 2013 Kentucky River Basin Management Plan & Wolf Run Watershed Plan

Wolf Run Plan con-tains more than 100 GI elements

Steele’s Run Fecal Coliform Pending Kentucky River Basin Management Plan

21

Veterans Park tree planting, Lexington, Kentucky, Photo Credit: Andrew Stoeckinger

22

Section 2.0 | Lexington’s Approach for Mitigating Stormwater Impacts

While Lexington had a head start implementing green infrastructure with its 2007 Com-prehensive Plan, the real impetus for utilizing green infrastructure in Lexington was the Consent Decree settlement with the U.S. EPA and the Clean Water Act requirements for Lexington’s MS4 permits. Today, while green infrastructure is not yet a requirement, Lex-ington has developed a robust system for its implementation by starting a grant program for green infrastructure projects and by publishing guidelines for low impact development. Lexington has also adapted its local ordinances and regulations to accommodate green infrastructure and promotes it as a viable alternative to traditional gray infrastructure. While Lexington still lacks a mandatory program for retrofitting already developed prop-erty with green infrastructure, Lexington has implemented an incentive grant program that has awarded almost one million dollars per year in grants for voluntary green infra-structure retrofits. This voluntary program has received notoriety as a model across the southeastern United States. The following summarizes Lexington’s regulatory structure when permitting new development, permitting redevelopment, and implementing green infrastructure across Fayette County.

23

Section 2.1 | Regulatory Structure for Implementing Green Infrastructure

Lexington, like many cities its size, has a robust stormwater regulatory program. While the Consent Decree was a major factor motivating the LFUCG to implement its stormwa-ter program, Lexington has taken a few extra steps. These include green infrastructure strategies such as: implementing a stormwater management fee that directly funds its incentive grant program to help implement green infrastructure, amendeding the City’s ordinances and regulations to allow for green infrastructure to be used instead of tradi-tional stormwater BMPs, and publishing a Low Impact Development Guidebook, which makes green infrastructure strategies and designs accessible if a developer so chooses. Still, there is no requirement to use or even assess the use of green infrastructure on new development or re-development, and there is no mandatory program that addresses green infrastructure retrofits on already developed property. However, there is a robust voluntary program to retrofit property with green infrastructure. The following provides an analysis of the major regulatory and planning documents that currently providesfor the use of green infrastructure in Lexington.

2007 Comprehensive Plan for Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan introduces green infrastructure to the planning process in Lexington. The 2007 Plan calls for “[d]eveloping a green infrastructure system with open space, facilities, and amenities that serves all citizens and helps create a sense of community.”23 The Plan states:

Green infrastructure necessitates a comprehensive, holistic approach to natural resource and greenspace planning and management, result-ing in a balance between ecologic and human needs. Infrastructure is de-fined as the substructure or underlying foundation, especially the basic installations and facilities on which the continuance and growth of a com-munity depends. Communities routinely provide gray infrastructure, such as roads, utilities, and public buildings. Like gray infrastructure, desig-nating natural resources and landscapes as infrastructure elevates them equally as essential and necessary to the functioning of the community.24

The Plan recommends that a Green Infrastructure Plan be developed that will integrate the principles into the planning and management of natural resources and landscapes. The Plan should include a vision, goals and objective, and specific recommendations for steps in achieving sustainability. Although the 2007 Comprehensive Plan dedicates a substantial portion to green infrastructure, the plan does little to suggest ways to imple-ment green infrastructure outside of a recommendation to develop a Green Infrastructure Plan.

LFUCG Stormwater Ordinances, Regulations, and Programs

As a result of the Consent Decree, Lexington’s MS4 permit, and on its own initiative,

23 LFUCG 2007 Comprehensive Plan at 11.24 Id. at 105.

24

Version 1.13.11 

Summary of LFUCG Ordinance entitled “Reduction of Soil Erosion” (Chapter 16, Article X, Division 5)

Size of Land Disturbance Ordinance Requirements 3LFUCG Land Disturbance

Permit Required

LFUCG Level of Review and Inspection

1 One acre or more, including lots that are less than one acre but that are part of a larger common plan of development

Permit application must include a SWPPP prepared in accordance with KYR10 and LFUCG Stormwater Manual. See Section 16-104.

Incorporates state KYR10 requirements into LFUCG’s Ordinance. KYR10 inspection certification by corporate officer not

applicable KYR10 critical area and buffer zone applies to MS4 inlets, in

addition to “Waters of the Commonwealth.”

Yes Review SWPPP, inspect monthly. See Note 2.

2 5,000 sf – 1 acre sites that are not part of category 1 above. Also includes sites < 5,000 sf (and not part of Category 1) where new commercial or residential building is being constructed.

Permit application must include an ESC Plan prepared in accordance with LFUCG Stormwater Manual. See Section 16-101.

See Note 1 below.

Yes Review ESC plan, inspect monthly. See Note 2.

3 Less than 5,000 sf that are not part of category 2 or not covered by “general” utility lines construction permit (Category 4).

General requirement to use practical controls to minimize discharge of sediment. See Section 16-103.

See Note 1 below.

No Inspect on a complaint basis

4 Linear Construction Projects that are not part of Category 1 above

Intended for Utility Companies

Permit application must include an ESC Plan prepared in accordance with LFUCG Stormwater Manual. LFUCG will require utility companies that routinely conduct such activities to apply for a general permit that stays in effect for two years. See Section 16-102.

See Note 1 below.

Yes Review ESC plan, inspect monthly. See Note 2.

Note 1: A vegetated undisturbed buffer must be maintained within 25’ of a perennial or intermittent stream bank, MS4 storm sewer inlet, sinkhole, or wetland, unless impractical due to nature of the project, in which case a protective alternate control shall be employed. For category 3, the buffer requirement is 10’.

Note 2: “Review” means the LFUCG level of review necessary to assess whether plans reasonably include measures that address potential water quality impacts from construction. By issuance of a permit, LFUCG does not accept responsibility for the design, installation, and operation and maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls.

Note 3: Activities excluded from coverage under Section 16-101 include sodding (less than 10,000 sf), all agricultural activities, and cemetery lots.

Above is a summary of the lot size, planning, and permitting requirements for land dis-turbance permits in Fayette County. Credit: Lexington DWQ, available at Stormwater Links, www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx?page=863.

Lexington has implemented several ordinances and programs relating to stormwater and stormwater con-trols including those related to: a stormwater management fee25, privately owned detention and retention basins26, erosion and sediment controls, industrial and high risk commercial stormwater runoff27, zoning28, and subdivision regulations.29 Lexington’s ordinance also address floodplains and flooding protection, illicit discharges30, and provides a variety of public outreach and education initiatives31. These ordinances and programs also inform the Lexington Stormwater Manual, which contain the stormwater regulatory require-ments for both new development and construction and redevelopment.

25 Lexington City Ordinances, Ch. 16, Art. XIV.26 Id., Ch. 16, Art. X, Div. 2.27 Id., Ch. 16, Art. X, Div. 3.28 Lexington Zoning Ordinance, Artsicles 17-20.29 Subdivsion Regulations, visit www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx?page=771. 30 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, visit www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx?page=260931 Education and Outreach, visit www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx?page=2598.

25

Lexington Stormwater Manual

The purposes of the Stormwater Manual are: (1) to provide standards to assure quality in the design and construction of stormwater infrastructure that becomes a part of that owned or regulated by the LFUCG by providing standard design criteria to the engineers who design the infrastructure; (2) to establish uniformity in design assumptions and gen-eral methods of design; (3) to set policy regarding design standards and specifications and provide for uniform interpretation of the specifications; and (4) to outline the required calculations and design details applicable to all stormwater infrastructure.

While the Stormwater Manual provides the details on how a developer is to manage stormwater on site, including BMPs, permitting, and planning, it fails to mention the use of green infrastructure or low impact development. The Stormwater Manual does re-quire the treatment of 100% of stormwater runoff from a new development. However, for redevelopment projects, the Stormwater Manual requires a maximum treatment of 20% of stormwater runoff. Many, including the WWKY, have criticized this differentiated treat-ment of redevelopment, but, at this point, the LFUCG has not changed it.

LFUCG Low Impact Development Guidelines

To address the commitment of the LFUCG to implement green infrastructure and low impact development as a wet weather management tool in Fayette County, the LFUCG adopted the LFUCG Stormwater Management Low Impact Development Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment (“LID Guide”).32 The purpose of the LID Guide is to provides engineers, architects, planners, developers, builders, and interested public groups with guidance on how to incorporate stormwater LID and green infrastructure practices into development projects occurring in Fayette County and to provide guidance to property owners who seek to retrofit their existing developed sites that are not subject to LFUCG regulations.33

The LID Guide is the result of the Consent Decree and Lexington’s MS4 Permit, which require the development of a Stormwater Quality Management Program. The SWQMP mandated the development of this LID Guide. The LID Guide is not regulatory, meaning that it is not mandatory that a developer use the BMPs and practices contained in the LID Guide. The LID Guide is only supplemental to the adopted regulatory manuals such as the Stormwater Manual, and developers can use the BMPs and practices in the LID Guide if they so choose.

As stated in the LID Guide, “Chapter 10 of LFUCG’s Stormwater Manual provides de-sign standards for ‘post-construction’ BMPs to manage both stormwater quantity and quality on sites proposed for development.”34 The LID Guide gives several examples of how to use LID to control water quantity and quality by substituting green infrastructure

32 The LID Guide is available at www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=21984.33 Id. at 1.34 Id. at 7.

26

designs and strategies in place of the traditionally used designs and strategies found in Lexington’s Stormwater Manual. The LID Guide also outlines who is responsible for the maintenance and operation of different post-construction controls.

The LID Guide explains that stormwater quantity and quality BMPs are required for new development and redevelopment projects that disturb one or more acres of land. Any new development or redevelopment must use BMPs in compliance with the Stormwater Manual. A developer can also chooose to use BMPs found in the LID Guide. The chart below shows typical applications for LID designs in Lexington. For a list of water quality/quantity control permits needed prior to commencement of construction for a new devel-opment or redevelopment project and for a LID management practice selection matrix, see Appendix 2.

27

Section 2.2 | Examples of GI Projects in Lexington

As mentioned in the previous section, the City of Lexington is currently identifying, fund-ing, developing, and implementing green infrastructure in a variety of ways, including LFUCG Capital Projects funded through the water quality management fee, watershed-based plan initiatives, State/Federal grants (e.g. 319(h) grants, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife grants), University initiatives, new development/re-development, and voluntary retrofits on non-developing sites through LFUCG’s Incentive Grant Program or by self funding. The result is a variety of green infrastructure projects implemented across Fayette Coun-ty. These projects can be divided into three categoires: public projects, public/private partnerships, and private projects.

Public Projects

The City of Lexington has developed and implemented sevaral projects across the Coun-ty utilizing LFUCG funds and also federal and state grants. Completed and upcoming public projects in Fayette County are listed bleow:

Completed GI ProjectsGainesway Basin Retrofit LFUCG/319(h) grantMcConnell Springs Wetland Pond LFUCG/319(h) grantRain Garden Way subsidized housingDowntown Streetscapes, Bioretention Planters federal stimulus fundsWoodland Park Permeable PaversS. Elkhorn Pump Station Permeable Concrete LFUCG, Consent DecreeLyric Theatre Vegetated Roof and Rain Har-vestingLegacy Trail Rain GardensFunded GI Projects but not CompleteColdstream Park Greenway and Stream Restoration

EPA Consent Decree

Cross Keys Park Pond Retrofit 319(h) GrantPicadome Golf Course sinkhole remediation and Vaughn’s Branch

319(h) Grant

Several examples of public green infrastructure projects are depicted below. When avail-ble, further details and a link to the project will be provided in the caption to each image.

28

Rain Gardens, Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky

McConnell Springs, site design by CARMAN. McConnell Springs is the location of the firstsettlmentinLexington.Amajorredevelopmentproject,thesitehasseveralgreen

infrastructure designs and features. Visit: www.mcconnellsprings.org. Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Rain Garden Way, designed by Sherman Carter & Barnhart, , PSC. Part of a public housing development, GI features such as rain gardens and biore-

tention cells were utilized.Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

29

Gainesway Pond in Lexington. Designed by CDP Engineers, this redevelopment features renovated ponds and restored wetlands and serves as an educational

site for nearby Tates Creek High School. Visit: www.lexingtonky.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=64.

Photo credits: LFUCG DEQ

30

Rain Gardens, Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky

Rain Barrel, LFUCG Government Center, Lexington, Kentucky

South Elkhorn Pump Station, designed by CDP Engineers. The pump station was ex-panded per the Consent Decree. The station features permeable pavement, raingar-

dens, bioswales, and a monitoring station. Visit: www.cdpengineers.com/projects/water-wastewater/south-elkhorn-pump-station-and-force-main-improvements

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

University of Kentucky Chandler Hospital, vegetated roof. Visit: ukhealthcare.uky.edu/one_default.aspx?id=7699

Photo Credit: Randy Strobo

31

Lyric Theatre, designed by CARMAN and Tate Hill Jacobs Architects. The historic Lyric Theatre was redesigned to include a vegetated roof and rain water harvesting.

LEEDGoldCertified.Visit: www.thjarch.com/projects/community/lyric.html

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Downtown Lexington bioretention cells, designed by STRAND. Lexington features 32 bioretention cells throughout the downtown area.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

32

Mill Creek Elementary stream restoration, designed by Ridgewater and EcoGrow, This project features a rain garden and stone amphitheatre as well as restored stream and

stream buffer. Funded through a Kentucky River Authority grant. Visit: http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/KRWW/Using%20Your%20Results/Millcreek_KRA_Fi-

nal_Report.htmlPhoto credit: LFUCG DEQ

Stream restoration project at the University of KentuckyPhoto credit: LFUCG DEQ

33

Public/Private Partnerships

Lexington City Ordinance § 16-410 establishes the Stormwater Quality Projects Incen-tive Grant Program (“SWQ Grant Program”). The SWQ Grant Program was established to assist property owners, businesses, and organizations in the implementation of pro-jects that improve water quality through innovation and education in Fayette County. The SWQ Grant Program is funded by 10% of the LFUCG Water Quality Management Fee (WQMF) per § 16-410 and is administered by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Not only as a way to raise money for general stormater regulation and project funding, the WQMF is the primary vehicle for green infrastrucutre implementation across Fayette County. The SWQ Grant Program budget for its first four years has totaled 5.1 million dollars. The primary goal of the SWQ Grant Program is the improvement of water quality in Fayette County. The program provides financial assistance for projects that meet the following objectives:

• Improve water quality in our impaired streams through pollutant reduction or other means;

• Address stormwater concerns on existing, developing, or re-developing parcels;• Reduce stormwater runoff and flooding; or• Educate and involve the public on these issues.

There are two categories of grants, Class A (Neighborhood) and Class B (Education & Infrastructure). Cost share is required and grants cannot be used to meet regulatory requirements (e.g. detention/water quality required for new development). Long term maintenance agreements are also required for infrastructure projects.

Grants are awarded through a competitive grant application process. Each application is reviewed by the DWQ for eligibility and merit. The Water Quality Fees Board reviews rec-ommendations by the Director of the DWQ and makes a final determination on all grant applications. See Appendix 3 for a summary of all 2013 grant recipients.

Class B Education grants are for projects designed to provide and promote public or private education and involvement related to the importance of stormwater quality in Fayette County. This can include employee training on stormwater pollution prevention; student curriculum development for water quality education; and public education and involvement in pollution mitigation, such as stream cleaning, storm drain marking, etc. Education grantees include the University of Kentucky, Transylvania University, Fayette County Schools, nonprofit organizations, and telecommunication companies such as WLEX and WKYT.

Several examples of public/private green infrastructure projects are depicted below. When available, further details and a link to the project will be provided in the caption to each image.

34

Rain Gardens and Rain Barrels are funded throughout Lexington through the Incentive Grant Program Class A grants.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Gardens of Hartland Home Owners’ Association Rain Garden, designed by Vision Engineering and Oasis Aquatic Gardens

Photo credit: Andrew Stoeckinger

35

Ronald McDonald House, designed by CDP Engineers. Visit: www.cdpengineers.com/markets/private-development/ronald-mcdonald-house

Image credit: LFUCG DEQ

36

Ronald McDonald House, permeable pavers.Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Ronald McDonald House, permeable asphalt.Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

37

There were also several projects undertaken as a requirement of Lexington’s Consent Decree settlement. These projects include green infrastructure components for manage-ment of wet weather flows in Fayette County and have been identified as a Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in the Consent Decree. These two projects are shown below.

Coca-Cola Refreshments, designed by Ridgewater / EcoGro. A $189,000 grant was used to construct and implement a 10,000 gallon Rainwater

Harvesting Tank for gray water reuse in its truck wash facility, for battery filling,andfortoilets.Thesystemalsoutilizedaninfiltrationchamberand

bioretention facility with a water quality and quantity monitoring station. Visit: ecogro.advancedmulching.com/index.php?q=coca-cola-rain-garden.

Image credits: LFUCG DEQ

38

Coca-ColaRefreshments,infiltrationchamber.Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Coca-Cola Refreshments, bioretention facility with water quality and quantity monitoring station maintained by the University of Kentucky.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

39

Ross Tarrant Architects. A $109,000 grant was used to construct and im-plementaperviousconcreteparkinglotretrofit.Thisisthebeforepic-

ture. The after picture is below. Photo credits: LFUCG DEQ

40

Yates Elementary School, designed by Sherman Carter Barnhart.Permeable pavers and rain garden.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Private Projects

Businesses, property owners, institutions, and organizations have also implemented green infrastructure using their own funds without grants or other financial assistance. These people and entities do so for a number of reasons including: cost effectiveness, environmental stewardship, environmental education, aesthetics, and efficiency. A break-down of known private green infrastructure as of October 2013 is below:

• Permeable Pavers / Asphalt: 15 sites• Rain Garden / Bio-swale: 7 sites• Infiltration Basins: 7 sites• Vegetative Filter Strip: 1 site• Rainwater Harvesting: 2 sites35

Several examples of private green infrastructure projects are depicted below. Again, when available, further details and a link to the project will be provided in the caption to each image.35 Plueger, Ssuan. “State of the County on Green Infrastructure”. Advancing Green Infra-structure in Lexington Conference Presentation. Lexington AgriScience School, Lexington, KY. 10 Oct. 2013.

41

Georgia’s Kitchen, designed by J.E. Black, PLLC. Redevelopment green infrastructure project that implements pervious concrete for a parking lot.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Nick Ryan’s Saloon, designed by Pedigo Design. Permeable pavers used in parking lot.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

42

Lexington Housing Authority, Bluegrass Aspendale, designed by Sherman Carter Barnhart. Permeable pavers used in parking lot that

saved over one million dollars in infrastructure costs.Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Providence Montessori School, designed by Integrated Engineering. Bioretention cells.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

43

TAC Air, Hanger Drive, designed by M2D Design. 4500 square feet of permeable pavers.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Episcopal Diocese,, designed by M2D Design Group.. Permeable pavers used in parking lot.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

44

Eastern State Hospital, designed by STRAND. Bioretention and detention. Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Northside RV, designed by ECSI.Pervious asphalt.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

45

Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church, designed by ECSI.Pervious asphalt.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

Bridle Creek Apartments, designed by CDP Engineers.Retention pond to bioretention.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

46

Wellington Elementary School, designed by CARMAN. Bioretention, rain water harvesting, and permeable pavers. Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

RodHatfieldChevrolet,designedbyVisionEngineering.Permeable pavers.

Photo credit: LFUCG DEQ

47 Locust Trace AgriScience Farm, Lexington, KentuckyPhoto Credit: Tate Hill Jacobs Archtitects

48

Section 3.0 | The Future of Green Infrastructure in Lexington

July 2012

The City of Lexington has made significant strides to incorporate green infrastructure and LID into public, private, and institutional development and redevelopment projects across Fayette County. However, as the participants of the Advancing Green Infrastruc-ture in Lexington Conference observed, much more can be done. This section will ana-lyze Lexington’s efforts through the Recommended Actions found throughout the KGIAP, offer suggestions for how Lexington can measure, adjust, set goals, and account for the contributions green infrastructure has made to the community, and suggest ways to fur-ther incor-porate green infrastructure throughout the Lexington community.

Many of the Recommended Actions in the KGIAP have already been addressed by the LFUCG, various citizen organizations, the Kentucky Division of Water, and this Lexington Supplement. The following chart evaluates how Lexington and their citizens are doing in regard to those recommended actions in the opinion of these authors.

Recommended Actions Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

RA1: Conduct an assessment of all available stormwater management reports, plans and data in your community. If none exist or if there are gaps in the data, take steps to gather your own data and engage local residents to determine what are the storm-water problems and how green infrastructure will best suit a particular community. Become a volunteer monitor to gather current data regarding the effectiveness of stormwater controls through site inspection.

RA2: Identify federal, state and local laws and ordinances affecting local storm-water management decisions. Take advantage of opportunities to participate in public meetings and other forms of discourse with local decision-makers. When appropriate, recommend the green infrastructure approach as practical and cost-effective means of complying with these laws. Recommend revisions to local devel-opment requirements that may prevent green infrastructure design approaches.

RA3: Coordinate green infrastructure planning with interested stakeholders. Iden-tify existing or proposed planning for water quality and quantity. Determine op-portunities for cost-sharing.

RA4: Identify proponents and opponents of green infrastructure in the community. Approach experts in fields relevant to green infrastructure for advice and consult-ing.

RA5: Identify funding opportunities for green infrastructure projects including bond financing, development fees, development incentives, stormwater utility user fees, and grants.

RA6: Work with WWKY Science Advisors to develop a WWKY water sampling training module for green infrastructure. Utilize and improve the monitoring methodologies already employed by the WWKY to most effectively monitor green infrastructure BMPs and projects.

RA7: Using the WWKY CAP program as a model, develop local Green Infrastruc-ture CAPs for municipalities within a local basin. Use the WWKY CAP’s environ-mental and cultural history, citizen/scientific examination, assessment, and action items sections. Utilize the WWKY’s water monitoring and maintenance resources to determine the most beneficial GI strategies for a community.

Section 3.1 | The Recommended Actions of the KGIAP: An Evaluation of Lexington

49

This Recommended Action chart indicates that Lexington has done a good job evaluat-ing its community, identifying needs, and finding funds to implement green infrastructure. For example, Lexington currently has a robust, well funded stormwater program, thanks to the implementation of its water quality management fee. This fund has supported a voluntary green infrastructure program with a budget of over $5.1 million over the past four (4) years. Lexington has come a long way with valuing its water resources since Town Branch was buried in the early 1800s. Most importantly, Lexington embraced green infrastructure in its planning and regulatory programs and policies.

However, broad citizen understanding and participation, mandatory green infrastructure requirements, and green infrastructure monitoring are lacking. While Lexington is pro-moting green infrastructure, it still does not require it. Very little is being done currently to monitor and document the benefits Lexington is receiving from green infrastructure, or to map the water diverted from the stormwater sewer system to green infrastructure. There are no community targets or goals set by the LFUCG, or any other organization to have a set amount of water diverted by green infrastructure in the future or to measure how Lexington is doing compared to other cities across the country. Finally, while some engineering firms, government officials, organizations, and citizens understand the ben-efits and cost savings of green infrastructure, most people do not. Lexington must raise awareness of green infrastructure in the community. One way to do so is by designing and constructing impact projects that have high visibility and that can attract people both locally and from abroad. Lexington has made strides to implement GI, but there is much more that the government, citizens, and the WWKY can do to make Lexington a green infrastructure leader.

50

The Roles of WWKY and KRWW

Building on the experience of WWKY, the KRWW and the River Network in 2012 with our Advancing Green Infrastructure in Louisville conference, WWKY and KRWW began work in Lexington in January 2013 by approving the plan to form the KRWW Green Team to work with Gayle Killam and River Network. WWKY and KRWW partnered with Bluegrass Greensource (formerly Bluegrass PRIDE) and the LFUCG Division of Water Quality. The KRWW Green Team met regularly throughout 2013 to plan the Advancing Green Infra-structure in Lexington conference. The KRWW Green Team formed a Volunteer Monitor-ing Technical Committee to work with Dr. Lindell Ormsbee and the Kentucky Water Re-sources Research Institute (KWRRI) to develop citizen volunteer monitoring protocols.

The KRWW Green Team reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Update and the work of the Storm Water Advisory Committee. At the conclusion of the Advancing Green Infrastructure in Lexington Conference on October 10, 2013, several recommendations were made including: (1) making green infrastructure mandatory rather than optional; (2) improving monitoring and reporting out; (3) investigating and applying for national recognition and rankings, such as NRDC’s Emerald City program; and (4) utilizing programs such as the Green Infrastructure Port-folio Standard. Those recommendations in addition to a few others are further developed below.

At the final meeting of the KRWW Green Team in 2013, LFUCG Director of Environmen-tal Policy Susan Plueger described her three take-aways from the conference as: (1) The need for the LFUCG Division of Water Quality to better understand our karst geology as it supports and limits green infrastructure; (2) The need for more scientific analysis of the effectiveness of porous pavement; and (3) the opportunity to build a green infrastructure portfolio plan for Lexington based upon acres (rather than volume/gallons), to be consid-ered as our “greened acres” approach.

In October 2013, VEE awarded a one year grant of $45,000 to WWKY, a portion of which supports extending WWKY’s work on green infrastructure statewide and contin-ues WWKY’s partnership with River Network through 2014. WWKY conducted a Board retreat in January to plan the statewide work with River Network.

KRWW has identified volunteers who will continue the work in Lexington (“KRWW Green Team”) and who want to help on a Statewide (“WWKY Green Team”) basis and has formed the KRWW Storm Team to learn how volunteers can monitor storm events. These teams will make recommendations to KRWW and WWKY concerning the following ele-ments of a Lexington Green Infrastructure Action Pan, and will help plan and implement our work on a statewide basis.

Increase Public Understanding and Support

WWKY and KRWW Green Teams will continue to seek to increase public understanding of the benefits of green infrastructure by maintaining our relationships with partner or-

Section 3.2 | Elements of the Lexington GI Action Plan

51

ganizations. WWKY will work with River Network to develop additional training modules to help our volunteers interpret their water monitoring data, and gain a better understand-ing of green infrastructure.

Making Green Infrastructure and LID Mandatory Rather Than Optional

As succinctly explained in the LID Guide, those recommendations are guidance and not mandatory like the Stormwater Manual and other adopted LFUCG regulatory docu-ments. There is no requirement in Lexington that obligates developers to use or even evaluate whether green infrastructure or LID can be used for a new development or re-development. LFUCG should evaluate the feasibility of mandatory green infrastructure or LID and determine an incremental timeline for such implementation.

In addition, Lexington stormwater ordinances, regulations, and requirements are pro-spective and only apply to new and re-development projects. Lexington should explore programming to cost-effectively reduce runoff by retrofitting existing developed land.

Improve Monitoring and Reporting Out

A major concern of the Conference participants was the inability for Lexington to evalu-ate and report out the impact the current green infrastructure program has had on Lex-ington’s stormwater program. While Lexington can provide data on the costs of certain projects and the amount and number of grants provided, those numbers do not reflect cost savings, water quality treatment, or water volume that has been diverted out of the stormwater and sanitary sewer systems. For example, the City of Louisville recently re-ported that it had established 97 green infrastructure projects that cost more than $13

Cite: Rooftops to Rivers GI Report II (2011 Update), available at http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsII/files/rooftopstoriversII.pdf,

52

million. Those projects are saving about $2 million in operational costs annually, retaining 256 million gallons of stormwater annually, and reducing stormwater overflow by 2.7 mil-lion gallons per storm event.36 LFUCG should develop similar accounting programs and reports that can publicize the benefits of green infrastructure to the community.

The KRWW Storm Team will support Susan Plueger’s efforts to obtain more scientific analysis of the effectiveness of porous pavement. The KRWW Storm Team will get on-the-ground experience monitoring storm events during 2014 and will make recommen-dations about a volunteer training module to the WWKY Science Advisors

Recognition and Goals

Lexington should aspire to being recognized as a leader in green infrastructure on a re-gional and national level. While Lexington certainly has potential for growth and needs to do more, it already has a head start on other communities of similar size both regionally and nationally. Lexington should work in collaboration with organizations that recognize communities’ efforts to implement green infrastructure to become a green infrastructure leader.

For example, the NRDC’s Rooftops to Rivers program ranks and recognizes several cit-ies across the country with its Emerald City Rankings. Cities such as Philadelphia, Chi-cago, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse, are compared, contrasted, and ranked, allowing each city to see how they stack up against other cities across the country. Those cities are ranked according to the following categories:

• Develop a long-term green infrastructure plan to lay out the city’s vision, as well as prioritize infrastructure investment.

• Develop and enforce a strong retention standard for stormwater to minimize the im-pact from development and protect water resources.

• Require the use of green infrastructure to reduce, or otherwise manage runoff from, some portion of impervious surfaces as a complement to comprehensive planning.

• Provide incentives for residential and commercial property owners to install green infrastructure, spurring private owners to take action.

• Provide guidance or other affirmative assistance to accomplish green infrastructure through demonstration projects, workshops and “how-to” materials and guides.

• Ensure a long-term, dedicated funding source is available to support green infrastruc-ture investment.

Lexington should seek to become an Emerald City, which would likely bring good public-ity, exposure and funding. To do so, Lexington should find a partner to evaluate the city’s efforts under this program and work with the NRDC to secure Emerald City standing. Lexington should also look at other programs such as the Portland Sustainability Insti-tute’s EcoDistrict Program and the Sustainable Sites Initiative to provide guidance and funding sources for green infrastructure adoption and implementation.

36 Tierney, Michael. “From Gray to Green.” Insider Louisville. 3 Jan. 2014, http://insiderlou-isville.com/news/2014/01/03/gray-green-msd-saving-dollars-cents-green-infrastructure/.

53

Green Infrastructure Portfolio Standard (GIPS)

At the Advancing Green Infrastructure Conference, Hal Sprague of the Center for Neigh-borhood Technology introduced the Green Infrastructure Portfolio Standard (GIPS) concept. Similar to renewable energy portfolio standards, green infrastructure portfo-lio standards gradually increase retention of stormwater runoff in developed areas us-ing green infrastructure. A planning and evaluation tool for stormwater runoff retrofits, a green infrastructure portfolio standard is a 10-20 year long-term program with annual stormwater diversion goals of 1%-2% from gray infrastructure to green infrastructure. This GI portfolio standard has been proven to be a cost effective way to implement green infrastructure on existing development.

To implement this program, the total annual runoff volume into the storm sewer system from a project area must be estimated. Next, a committee or task force identifies all pro-jects (public and private) with potential to incorporate GI. Then, the retention capacity of each project should be calculated. After the reductions for one year can be established or estimate, long term reduction goals should be set. This program has been success-ful in cities such as Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Grand Rapids, Michigan.37 In Lexington, this will likely proceed as a “green acres” program, based upon the intital response from Susan Pleuger, above.

Lexington as a Living Laboratory

In order to spur innovation and make Lexington a leader in GI technology and implemen-tation, Lexington should adopt policies that open entry points in the planning and design process for researchers and developers to try new GI strategies, designs, and concepts. “[U]urban ecology researchers can integrate their work into urban development projectsthrough the designed experiments approach...whereby researchers work with design-ers to generate real-world, sitespecific data while also influencing the process and the outcomes of urban design and landscape architecture.”38 Felson et al. explains that ex-panding the researcher’s role in the design process has the potential to integrate cur-rent research into the design and management of the urban built environment and can establish a new paradigm for both studying and actively shaping urban ecosystems. Such innovation can be important to Lexington by helping to develop designs that take into account and incorporate Lexington’s unique karst geology and terrain. In Lexington, this research will likely include additional study of the effectiveness and risks of green infrastructure and karst geology. .

This concept has a direct correlation with the plans of WWKY to expand the use of green infrastructure across the state. By opening the channels to research and innovation, Lex-ington can be a green infrastructure leader not only by implementing existing designs, but also by developing new designs and other innovations. For a road map that demon-strates the entry points in the design process for research, see Appendix 4.

37 For a comprehensive explanation of how a GI Portfolio Standard can be implemented in Lexington, visit www.cnt.org/water/projects/green-infrastructure/gips/.38 Felson AJ, et al. 2013. Mapping the design process for urban ecology researchers. Biosci-ence, 63 (11): 854-864.

54

Lexington has demonstrated that it is willing to fund green infrastructure projects through-out the city. Taken to another level, Lexington is in the beginning stages of developing and funding large impact projects that incorporate and highlight green infrastructure as a stormwater management solution. One current notable project is the daylighting of Town Branch and the development of Town Branch Commons. Besides the GI designs that will be incorporated in such a project, according to Lexington Mayor Jim Gray, the project will provide “a great reason to work downtown, move a business downtown, live downtown, visit downtown or have fun downtown. Other cities have done it with extraor-dinary results.”39 High impact projects such as the Town Branch Commons can elevate Lexington as a green infrastructure leader and as a national attraction in a sustainable, cost effective way.40

Unfortunately, proposed large scale new development and redevelopment in Lexing-ton lacks any green infrastructure innovation or implementation at all. For example, the Summit development in southern Fayette County is a 45 acre development site for a regional mall that makes no efforts to implement green infrastructure. Not only does this project serve as the ultimate example of where green infrastructure should be installed, especially with the millions of gallons of stormwater it will contribute to the stormwater sewer system, it could also serve as a prime space for experimental green infrastructure innovations. Until the LFUCG, engineers, and developers make green infrastructure a priority, these large projects will continue to be developed without the benefits of green infrastructure.39 “About,” Town Branch Commons. 10 Jan. 2014, available at http://www.townbranchcom-mons.com/#!about/aboutPage. 40 For more information about this project, visit www.townbranchcommons.com.

Section 3.3 | Impact Projects

55UK Chandler Medical Center Roof, Lexington, Kentucky

Photo Credit: Randy Strobo

56

Section 4.0 | Conclusion

July 2012

The City of Lexington is fortunate to have abundant natural resources, fertile soil, and a climate that allows for significant rainfall. After years of neglecting those resources, Lexington is taking the necessary steps to manage its resources in a way that is cost effective and that includes natural processes. Implementation in Lexington is still in its in-fancy. Yet, if Lexington leverages the current enthusiasm for green infrastructure to solve its stormwater management issues, beautify the city, save money, and spur innovation, Lexington can become a national leader in green infrastructure.

Lexington had a promising start, but now it must continue to adapt and further prioritize green infrastructure implementation. Cost and stormwater diversion data must be col-lected and analyzed, and adjustments to stormwater programs must be made based on those analyses. Short term and long term green infrastructure goals must be set. The planning and development process must be open to experimentation and innovation. Lexington must continue to make green infrastructure a priority, calling for mandatory implementation rather than voluntary. Lexington has opened the doors, but the future of green infrastructure in Lexington will depend on proving green infrastructure’s worth to the community, and motivating government officials to take the steps necessary to push green infrastructure throughout Lexington and Fayette County.

57

58

Appendix 1

1

ADVANCING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN LEXINGTON – 2013

October 10, 2013 at the Locust Trace AgriScience Farm

3591 Leestown Rd Lexington, KY 40511

Agenda 9:00 Welcome: Hank Graddy, WWKY & KRWW; Sara Tracy, Locust Trace 9:10 Keynote: Mayor Jim Gray: Advancing Green Infrastructure in Lexington 9:30 Conference Structure and Outcomes; Defining Terms Hank Graddy – WWKY & KRWW: Review Conference Method and Outcomes

Dr. Lindell Ormsbee, P.E., Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute

9:45 Plenary I – State of the County on Green Infrastructure Susan Plueger, P.E., LFUCG Division of Water Quality

Stormwater management in Fayette County since 70s, consent decree, LFUCG grants program, Examples: UK Chandler Medical, Coca Cola, Ronald McDonald House, McConnell Springs

10:15 Plenary II – Panel Discussion: State of the State on Green Infrastructure

Hank Graddy, moderating Panel members: Scott Southall, CDP Engineers; John Carman, CARMAN: Louisville "NULU"/Market St/Ecodistrict;

11:00 BREAK

2

11:15 Technical Breakout Sessions

• Green Infrastructure Basics. Dr. Lindell Ormsbee; Schuyler Warren, Bluegrass Greensource • Business/Institutional Green Infrastructure in Lexington Sandy Carmargo, P.E; Eric Larsen, UK • Residential Green Infrastructure in Lexington Chris Dent, LFUCG; Kara Sayles, Bluegrass Greensource • Green Infrastructure in Planning, Zoning, Subdividing Susan Plueger, P.E., LFUCG Division of Water Quality • Locust Trace panel & tour Sara Tracy, Locust Trace; John Carman

12:30 LUNCH 1:15: U.S. EPA: Christine McKay: Support for Kentucky Green Infrastructure.

[subject to federal government operations] 1:25: Plenary III - Green Infrastructure Portfolio Standard Hal Sprague, Center for Neighborhood Technology 2:00 Policy and Planning Breakout sessions:

• Locust Trace panel & tour Sara Tracy, John Carman • What can Lexington achieve? Hal Sprague, Hank Graddy • What are the barriers to green infrastructure in the urban core?

Scott Southall; Robert Hewitt, Frankfort Planning Commission; Brandi Berryman, Town Branch Commons

3:15 BREAK 3:30 Plenary IV - Panel Discussion: Questions considered in breakout session

Gayle Killam, River Network, facilitating • Potential panel members: Susan Plueger, Hal Sprague, Robert Hewitt, John

Carman, Dr. Lindell Ormsbee, Scott Southall, Hank Graddy • Bring audience questions and comments into discussion

4:45 End of day charge, Next steps Hank Graddy 5:00 Adjourn 5:30 Informal continuation at nearby establishment SPONSORS: Watershed Watch in Kentucky, Kentucky River Watershed Watch, Bluegrass Greensource, Sierra Club - Bluegrass Group, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, CDP Engineering, LFUCG Department of Environmental Policy, CARMAN As of: 10/3/2013. Register, and more information at: www.wwky.org, under Events Questions? Contact Hank Graddy at hank.graddy@gmail.com

59

60

Appendix 2

Version: September 2012

15 | L e x i n g t o n - F a y e t t e U r b a n C o u n t y G o v e r n m e n t L I D G u i d a n c e

Table 2-5 lists the permits that must be obtained prior to beginning construction, where applicable.

Table 2-6 shows the typical application of LID in Fayette County.

Table 2-5. Potential Permits/Approvals Required for Development Projects

Permit/Approval Agency Type of

Submittal

When Required

LFUCG Approval of

Alternative Design for

Environmental Water

Quality Considerations

LFUCG Planning

Commission

Submittal of

Report

When the proposed stormwater

management plan conflicts

with the Zoning Ordinance or

Subdivision Regulations.

LFUCG Land

Disturbance Permit

LFUCG Division of

Engineering

Application When 5000 square feet or

more of land will be disturbed

LFUCG Authorization to

Construct

LFUCG Division of

Water Quality and

Division of Planning

(New Development

Section)

Submittal of

plans

As part of the Improvement

Plans for a proposed

development

Federal 404 Permit U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers - Louisville

District

Application When construction is proposed

within a stream

KY 401 Water Quality

Certification

KY Division of Water Application When construction is proposed

within a stream

KY Stream Construction

Permit

KY Division of Water Application When construction is proposed

within a floodplain

LFUCG Special Permit

for Floodplain

Construction

LFUCG Division of

Engineering

Application When construction is proposed

within a floodplain

LFUCG Lane Closure

Permit

LFUCG Division of

Traffic Engineering

Application When necessary to close a lane

of traffic

LFUCG Right-of-Way

Encroachment

LFUCG Division of

Engineering

Application When construction will occur

within LFUCG right- of-way

KY Right-of-Way

Encroachment

KY Transportation

Cabinet, District 7

Application When construction will occur

within state right-of-way

LFUCG Building Permit LFUCG Division of

Building Inspection

Application When the activity will involve

construction of a building

LFUCG Demolition

Permit

LFUCG Division of

Building Inspection

Application When demolition of a building

or parking lot is proposed

LFUCG Curb Cut Permit LFUCG Division of

Building Inspection

Application When a public curb is to be cut

EPA Class V Injection

Well*

EPA Application When an infiltration practice is

proposed and it is deeper than

it is wide

*Refer to EPA’s 2008 Class V Well Identification Guide to determine which infiltration practices

have the potential to be regulated as a Class V well.

Version: September 2012

A-2| L e x i n g t o n - F a y e t t e U r b a n C o u n t y G o v e r n m e n t L I D G u i d a n c e

Appendix A - LID management practice selection matrix according to site characteristics

LID practice type

Bio-

retention

Bio-

infiltration

swale

Permeable

Pavement

Infilt-

ration

trench

Planter

boxes

Gravel for

Equine

Tree

Trench

Cisterns/

rain

barrels

Vegetated

Roof

Ground-

cover for

Parking

Attribute (no

UD) (UD)

(no

UD) (UD)

(no

UD) (UD)

Contributing

drainage area (acres)

< 5 < 2 < 5 < 5 < 0.35 < 1 < 0.35 Rooftop < 5 Rooftop

Soil infiltration rate

(inches/hour)

> 0.5 < 0.5 > 0.5 < 0.5 > 0.5 < 0.5 > 0.5 > 0.5 > 0.5 > 2 N/A > 0.5 N/A

Water table

separation (feet)

> 5 > 2 > 5 > 2 > 5 > 2 > 5 > 5 > 5 > 5 Below-grade

tanks must be

above the

water table

and bedrock

> 5 N/A

Depth to bedrock

(feet)

> 10 > 2 > 10 > 2 > 10 > 2 > 10 > 10 > 10 > 10 N/A N/A

Unit slope < 2% < 2% < 6% <2% N/A < 6% < 2% <5% < 5% N/A

Pollutant

removal

Sediments High High Medium Medium High Medium High Pollutant

removal

provided by

downstream

BMP, refer to

specific BMP

for removal

efficiency.

Medium Medium

Nutrients Medium High Low Low Medium Low Medium Low Low

Trash High High High High High High Low High Low

Metals High High Low Low High Low Low Low Medium

Bacteria High Medium Low Low High Low Low Low Low

Oil &

grease

High Medium Low Low High Low Low Low Low

Organics High High Low Low High Low Medium Low Low

Runoff volume

reduction

High Medium High Mediu

m

High Mediu

m

High High High Medium High Medium Medium

Peak flow control Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low

Groundwater

recharge

High Low High Mediu

m

High Low High High High Medium Low Medium N/A

Setbacks

(ft)

Structures > 10 > 10 > 10 > 10 > 5 > 10 > 10 > 5 > 10 N/A

Steep

slopes

> 50 > 50 > 50 > 50 > 50 > 50 > 50 > 50 > 50 N/A

Notes: UD: Underdrain

61

62

Appendix 3

Page 1 of 2 Last Revised: 05/31/13

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant Program

Summary of Grant Projects – FY2013 – $1,200,000.00 Awarded

Class B (Infrastructure) Grants 1. The Southland Association – (Southland Drive Corridor) Grant Amount: $50,000.00

Target Watershed: Wolf Run Feasibility Only Grant – Perform a feasibility study of flooding and water quality issues within the Southland Drive Business Corridor from Nicholasville Road to Rosemont Garden. Investigate and evaluate alternatives for utilizing stormwater controls on public and private property within the corridor to reduce stormwater runoff and improve water quality. Provide recommendations for future implementation by the Association and property owners.

2. Embrace Church – 1015 N Limestone Grant Amount: $215,745.00 Target Watershed: Cane Run Grantee shall design and construct stormwater control facilities to improve water quality and reduce runoff leaving the site. Facilities include retrofit of existing detention area (on an adjacent vacant LFUCG property) to expand detention volume and bio-retention which will be maintained by the grantee, install drainage inlets and storm sewer, removal of a portion of 2,300 square feet of asphalt parking, retrofit of a portion of 11,000 square feet of asphalt with grass pavers, removal of a portion of 2,250 square feet of impervious pavement and replace with bio-retention facility and curb.

3. The Fountains at Andover – 3200 Todds Road Grant Amount: $203,944.00 Target Watershed: East Hickman Grantee shall design and construct three stormwater control facilities to improve water quality and reduce runoff leaving the site. Facilities include addition of a water quality unit to capture trash and debris in line with a 72” storm sewer that receives offsite runoff from approximately 61 acres upstream of the site, retrofit of 10,000 square feet of existing parking lots with pervious pavements, and addition of aeration units in one or two on-site retention ponds to increase dissolved oxygen and limit algae blooms.

4. Habitat for Humanity – 700 E Loudon Avenue Grant Amount: $148,169.00

Target Watershed: Wolf Run Grantee shall design and construct stormwater control facilities to improve water quality and reduce runoff leaving the site. Facilities include retrofit of 14,000 square feet of existing parking lot with pervious pavements, addition of underground detention to reduce stormwater runoff from the site, and cover a portion of the costs for upgrading a new parking lot from asphalt to permeable pavements.

5. J M Smucker – 767 Winchester Road Grant Amount: $350,000.00 Target Watershed: Town Branch Grantee shall design and construct four stormwater control facilities to improve water quality and reduce runoff leaving the site. Facilities include retrofit of 16,000 square feet of existing parking lots with pervious pavements, retrofit of an existing detention basin with bio-infiltration features, addition of two 5,000 gallon rainwater harvesting tanks, and installation of a rain garden. The grantee will collaborate with the University of Kentucky on environmental education initiatives.

Class B (Education) Grants 1. Lansdowne Elementary (Fayette County Public Schools) Grant Amount: $3,500.00

Target Watershed: West Hickman Design and construct a rain garden on the Lansdowne Elementary School campus. Incorporate the rain garden into the environmental education curriculum and provide community outreach.

2. Group C J Grant Amount $34,547.00

Target Watershed: All of Fayette County In collaboration with the television stations WKYT-TV and the EKYT-CW, the grantee shall write, produce, and air approximately 30-second and 60-second educational commercial messages for a “Doing the Green Thing” campaign that show people actively performing tasks that reduce stormwater pollution and promote improving water quality.

Page 2 of 2 Last Revised: 05/31/13

These spots will also be used to directly tie into promoting the Great American Cleanup from March through May 2013.

3. The Living Arts and Science Center, Inc. Grant Amount: $29,213.00

Target Watersheds: All of Fayette County The project involves the development and implementation of a comprehensive curriculum and activities program to incorporate stormwater management, water quality, and water conservation topics into the Living Arts and Science Center’s ongoing educational programming.

Class A (Neighborhood) Grants

1. Brighton Woods Association, Inc. Grant Amount: $63,828.00 Target Watershed: East Hickman

This project involves design and construction of improvements to move a 240 linear foot section of Todds Road Tributary by about 15 feet from its current alignment. The existing stream is experiencing severe channel erosion and is encroaching upon a sanitary sewer and residential properties. Natural channel design techniques and vegetative streambank protection shall be utilized in the design to provide for a stable vegetated stream section. The channel resides on five private properties on Barnard Drive (i.e. 3813 to 3829 Barnard Drive). All effected property owners have provided written support for the project. Todds Road Tributary is a FEMA regulated stream, and therefore a detailed floodplain model will be required by FEMA verifying the project as designed and built keeps constant, or reduces, water surface elevations on adjacent properties.

2. Friends of Wolf Run, Inc. Grant Amount: $53,340.00

Target Watershed: Wolf Run Grant provides for funds to support the stream buffer stewardship program for Wolf Run. Activities shall include performing stream clean-ups, removal of invasive plant species, and planting of native vegetation along Wolf Run and its tributaries at various volunteer selected stewardship sites, as well as providing educational outreach by communication with streamside property owners and installation of educational signage at stewardship sites. Larger demonstration areas targeted for this year’s work include the Allendale-Moberly Spring Greenway, Pine Meadow Park, and Preston’s Cave Park.

3. Lansdowne Neighborhood Association, Inc. Grant Amount: $47,714.00

Target Watershed: West Hickman Design and construction of a log vane armoring system to address ongoing streambank erosion on a portion of the Lansdowne Drive Tributary of West Hickman Creek. The project stream site is located within the LFUCG-owned Zandale Park, however, this project is not an LFUCG identified capital or maintenance project. Following the guidelines for the incentive grant program, a suitable project identified, prioritized, and managed by citizens is eligible as an incentive grant project whether on public or private property. Parks & Recreation staff have reviewed and approved the Grant Award Agreement.

63

64

Appendix 4

Overview Articles

l•I

si

iiî̂ ^•s 8

^ jZT H

a s * - «

ta »- HS

o.5

Si P

f

S u o

'S U u

856 BioScience • November 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 11 WWW. biosciencemag. org

65