Next, Ben Hitchings presented the initial results from a recent survey of local codes and ordinances in the Upper Neuse Watershed. To date, nine local governments have used the Center for Watershed Protection's "Code and Ordinance Worksheet" tool to assess the extent to which development rules protect water resources. Five counties (Durham, Franklin, Orange, Person, and Wake) and four municipalities (Creedmoor, Durham, Hillsborough, and Raleigh) have completed the survey. The tool is based on the Center's 22 model development principles (Appendix B), which can be categorized generally as impervious surface reduction, best management practices (BMP's) and critical lands protection. Mr. Hitchings provided a sampling of the survey findings regarding allowable street widths, parking minimums vs. maximums, rooftop runoff, stormwater treatment, and riparian buffers. Mr. Hitchings and Mr. Dreps pesented the summary results in more detail during day two of the workshop.

• How LID dovetails with planning and smart growth principles
• How a local government could integrate LID into the comprehensive planning process
• Retrofitting urban areas for stormwater management
• The costs of construction in residential development
• How local codes compare to the state of the art in stormwater management nationally

Mr. Coffman spoke about LID in Prince George's County, Maryland, where the county has been promoting LID for over 10 years. The County has had a dedicated stormwater tax since 1945, originally used for flood control and now also for water quality. This tax has enabled the county to fund stormwater management projects and programs. Mr. Coffman stated that Prince George's County "doesn't want to impede growth because we need growth."

The two major goals of LID are to protect and restore hydrologic and ecological function of receiving waters and to maintain economic growth. The principles are based on decades of experience trying to undo past practices that sacrificed hydrologic and ecological function for the sake of efficiently removing stormwater runoff from sites. LID is a decentralized, technology-based approach for achieving the above goals. Mr. Coffman stated that it should not be confused with growth management or larger watershed planning goals, although he believes that LID can help communities meet multiple water management goals such as flood control, protection of water supply, and maintenance of ecological health. Mr. Coffman acknowledged that water supply seems to be the major driver for water resource planning in the Upper Neuse. He wants to help us understand that our goals of managing water supply and demand are tied to stormwater and that we should look at water supply in a holistic manner, thinking of stormwater as a resource.

Mr. Coffman's initial presentation focused on residential development. Conventional development is very efficient at taking water away from the site using pipe and pond controls, but this essentially destroys all the natural hydrologic functions of the area. The approach of LID is the opposite: to find diverse ways of managing stormwater on the site. He noted the parallel of conventional stormwater management strategies and our traditional approaches to ecosystem protection, stating that our current way of doing mitigation will result in the destruction of ecosystems because of cumulative impacts.

Mr. Coffman recommends that we should be restoring ecological function, including hydrology/hydraulics, habitat structure, water quality, energy sources, and biotic interactions. These functions are complex, and we do not yet know how these functions interact or how natural parameters respond to the environment. We do not know how to design for 'assimilative capacity of the environment', and we don't really know what 'supporting' and 'not supporting' designated uses really mean. Mr. Coffman posed the question, "Why not shoot for the ultimate and protect the natural hydrologic regime?"

He then critiqued the current practice of correlating percentage of impervious cover with the quality of a stream as an overly simplistic approach. He stated that the data, including that which we so often use to support the argument, do not show such a strong correlation (Chris May and Richard Horner, 1998). This study shows examples of watersheds experiencing significant degradation to aquatic ecosystems at very low levels of imperviousness and others where ecosystems remained intact beyond the ten percent figure we so often use. Mr. Coffman's contention is that there are site-level processes at work, and generalizing too much is potentially dangerous and ineffective. He concludes that we must first consider the predevelopment site hydrology and then determine the appropriate stormwater practices.

Mr. Coffman then used the example of the Reston, Virginia watershed management planing process. Despite buffers averaging 300 ft., local streams were experiencing decreasing stream function. The local team found that uncontrolled runoff was the problem, and was causing sedimentation in the regional water resource and dredging costs of approximately $0.5 million every three years. The Reston plan is changing from curb and gutter to new technology to meet economic and resource protection objectives.

Mr. Coffman then cited several examples that show stormwater detention as a risk to wildlife, including examples from Southern Ontario, the Puget Sound, and Australia. Problems associated with regional detention include limited effectiveness in protecting resources, high capital and maintenance costs, and safety/public health liabilities. The root problem is that we greatly alter the hydrology in forested uplands, where most of the rain falls and the hydrology is controlled through processes like evaporation, plant transpiration, subsurface flow, and groundwater recharge. When we build using current technologies, too much of the precipitation becomes surface water runoff.

Mr. Coffman showed many examples from the northeast U.S. of our traditional approach of moving water rapidly from sites. He called this approach "hydro-illogical". LID attempts to find creative means for maintaining and restoring pre-development storage volume, infiltration volume, evaporation volume, runoff volume, and flow paths. The goal is to engineer the site to mimic natural water cycle functions and relationships. Thus, hydrology is the organizing principle behind LID, and controlling volume is the key to successful design.

The major components of the LID approach are listed below.

Conservation- Use local watershed and conservation plans for protection of sensitive environmental areas such as forest, streams, wetlands, habitats, steep slopes, buffers, critical areas, parks, scenic areas, trails, shorelines, difficult soils, agricultural lands, and minerals. Minimization- Minimize impacts by minimizing clearing, grading, lot disturbance, impervious cover, pipes/curbs/gutters, saving Hydrologic Soils Groups A and B soils, amending soil, using alternative surfaces, reforestation, and disconnecting impervious cover. Strategic Timing- Maintain the time of concentration with open drainage, vegetation, slope flattening, drainage dispersal, flow path lengthening, headwaters protection, vegetative swales, natural flow path maintenance, increasing distance from streams, and sheet flow minimization. Integrated management practices- Storage, detention, and filtration. Use open drainage swales, bioretention (such as rain gardens), smaller pipes and culverts, small inlets, depression storage, infiltration, rooftop storage, pipe storage, street storage, rain water use, and soil management. Pollution Prevention - Using the other major components, Prince George's County has achieved a 30%-40% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous. This requires efforts toward maintenance and proper use handling and disposal by individuals, industry, and businesses.

The LID approach is complex, and can only be accomplished on a site by site basis. However, Mr. Coffman noted that LID practices can actually reduce development costs, mainly through lowered costs of grading/roads, storm drains, and stormwater management ponds. He also spoke briefly about the need to change local development/building codes to make LID possible. He used an example of a development created by Kettering in Maryland. The new development used LID techniques and a strong homeowner education component to manage stormwater. Some lessons learned were that LID is labor intensive, costs less to develop, requires an ongoing effort, and can be somewhat affected by residential property turnover (70%-80% participation). Rain gardens have been shown to continue to function over time (only one out of 99 failed), and to reduce pollutants by 30%-40%.

Mr. Coffman introduced LID as a technology-based strategy that focuses on the built environment, site design, and building codes. He discussed reasons why people may be unwilling to change practices, including mind set, lack of understanding, lack of motivation, perceived problems with the techniques, regulations that don't allow change, lack of training, other obligations, or differing cultural beliefs. He then spoke about the steps in the implementation process, using the example of the Friends of the Rappahannock in Maryland who used LID in the implementation of their watershed plan. He discussed what people like about LID, the issues with LID, and suggested next steps.

Mr. Coffman discussed LID and local regulations. LID technology does not necessarily require changes in local regulations, unless, like in Prince George's County, the local government decides to require LID, such as in environmentally sensitive areas. He gave some examples of how LID is incorporated into subdivision and building code (site plan) requirements. The Bielinski Development Company, the largest land developer in Wisconsin, has embraced LID principles, creating their "Eighteen General Planning Guidelines for Bielinski Conservation Development". The general categories of these planning principles are:

1. Natural resources (emphasize restoration, integrate natural resources & built env., use native plant species in open spaces and lot landscaping, buffer natural resources with restored native landscapes);
2. Stormwater management (emphasize water quality, treatment train approach using multiple techniques); and
3. Design guidelines (construction practices).

Bielinski has found that projects completed under these principles have been more successful than their conventional projects. For example, 0.2-acre lots have sold for 20% more in these areas. Over all, their sales experience has been increased sales velocity and volume, leading to reduced debt service. The biggest obstacle to the use of LID has been local ordinances. To make LID a reality, we need to educate ourselves, specifically elected officials, planning and zoning staff, engineers, and local developers. The biggest lesson learned: people love nature.

The good news is that most regulatory and engineering professionals and officials today are more receptive to LID. But, developers don't have time to incorporate LID principles piecemeal, overcoming inflexible ordinances one by one. We must look comprehensively at our ordinances and allow for flexibility.

Mr. Coffman then answered a few questions. Several important points were made:

• Mass clearing and grading is not consistent with LID principles;
• There can be a significant positive connection between LID and land use planning;
• In Maryland, smart growth advocates have worked to suppress LID because of the belief that LID encourages more growth;
• Upper Neuse hydrology is higher in runoff (30%) and lower in infiltration (12%) than other East Coast areas. We must consider this unique watershed characteristic in our attempts to use LID.

John Cox, City of Durham Stormwater Services:
Mr. Cox asked the question, "Is LID Ready for Prime Time?" He works for a stormwater utility with the goal of stormwater management. The Federal Clean Water Act mandates that surface waters be restored and protected. Mr. Cox explained the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) concept using the Neuse nitrogen loading rules. TMDLs define the upper limits of potential pollutants set to protect receiving waters. Currently, there are over 400 North Carolina streams listed as "impaired" under the Clean Water Act. How do we protect streams, and what are we protecting them from? In Durham, the major stressors are flow, sediment, and biological impairment (from nitrogen, PAH from vehicle emissions, and metals).

Mr. Cox asked a series of questions about LID.

• Is LID solving the right problem? Twenty-five percent of newly developed land is committed to roads, parking, etc. and urban land conversion is occurring four times faster than population growth.
• How much does LID depend upon reducing imperviousness? Too much focus on impervious cover reduction could mean promoting sprawl.
• Are local regulations ready for LID? Is the science good enough to support regulations? Mr. Cox presented the example of Total Nitrogen (TN) removal capabilities of bioretention. The State assumes bioretention measures have a TN removal rate of 25%, while Mr. Coffman's data show that bioretention has a TN removal efficiency of 43%.
• Are inspection costs reduced by LID? The State mandates that affected local governments in the Neuse River Basin inspect all stormwater BMPs on an annually basis. The State may need to make inspection requirements more flexible if distributed small-scale LID practices are to become a reality in the basin.
• Are designers ready for LID (especially considering NC Piedmont soils)?
• Are homebuilders/homeowners ready?

Finally, Mr. Cox concurred that existing practices do not protect streams and water resources, as is proven in the research and data.

Jim Wahlbrink, Raleigh-Wake County Home Builders Association
Mr. Wahlbrink began by making the point that not many people know what LID is and that education will be a key toward implementation. In addition, is there enough political will to implement LID? Besides these potential roadblocks, he sees lots of potential with LID. Some of the key issues are listed below.

• Shifting responsibility from homeowners associations to individual homeowners can be difficult.
• Stormwater management utilities have the greatest potential for oversight.
• Will LID be prescriptive or performance based?
• Will the state allow this approach?
• Without curb and gutter, pavement edges can break down more easily.
• Will homeowners associations allow rain barrels or other potentially unsightly practices?
• There is a need to try the approach on a test basis in some developments.
• There is a need for overall consistency in the region.

Stephen Hiltner, Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association
Mr. Hiltner began by describing conditions in the Ellerbe Creek watershed in Durham. Ellerbe Creek is a degraded creek flowing through the city. Historically, the creek has been treated as a ditch, and the Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association (ECWA) is attempting to change local attitudes toward the creek. There is a need to be creative because opportunities are limited, and the ECWA has turned some areas into focal points, for example wetland gardens in the park or on the golf course. Mr. Hiltner also mentioned the recent trend of extremes- periods of drought interspersed with flooding.

Mr. Hiltner listed several problems facing those attempting to change local practices.

• No one knows much about native plants that are very helpful in retaining water in the landscape.
• Few people know much about maintaining wetland plants or bioretention areas.
• There are issues and concerns with liability.
• There are concerns regarding mosquito control.
• Cisterns/rain barrels are too small to adequately collect the amount of rooftop runoff necessary in LID practices.

Mr. Hiltner finished by saying that there are positive projects going on in Durham. For example, the ECWA has worked with developers regarding how to convert sediment basins into wetlands for water quality and quantity control.

Response from Larry Coffman
Larry Coffman gave a brief response to the above presentations. First, he said that we are taking the first important step of dialogue and debate. He spoke about the issues regarding the homeowner's role in LID. His experience is that 30% of homeowners will disconnect or destroy their on-site LID measures. However, this is not necessarily a problem for several reasons. First, LID looks good, and people want to maintain the good looks of the property to maintain property values (some homeowners associations require protection of landscaping). Next, a lot of LID features are not subject to homeowner control. Also, LID is so decentralized and effective that it is difficult for a few non-compliant people to ruin the entire "treatment train" (this is a key to LID effectiveness). Finally, LID practices can be designed with a margin of safety without much extra cost.

In response to questions and comments regarding inspection and enforcement, Mr. Coffman said that the long-term approach to LID is based on voluntary compliance. There are ways to encourage maintenance, such as providing information at the time of purchase or transfer of property, or through homeowners association environmental committees. Mr. Coffman made the point that our track record for inspection and enforcement is terrible even for large-scale stormwater management.

Finally, Mr. Coffman stated that aesthetics and functional maintenance are the key to making LID work. It is important to understand the extent to which our current practice has disconnected individuals from our responsibility for maintaining the runoff we create. We have to change this attitude.

The High Performance Guidelines include 102 suggested measures relating to the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of buildings. Each measure is assigned a point value, and proposed building plans are evaluated against the measures. A composite score is calculated, with a higher score indicating a more sustainable building plan. The total number of points is 1,000; however, it is impossible to achieve a perfect score. The measures are tailored to North Carolina. The building guidelines are currently being used by Wake County Public Schools, Durham County., and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, and will also be used to evaluate at least ten building projects undertaken by the State. The 102 measures in the Guidelines can be divided into 7 categories: quality management, site, water, energy, materials, indoor environment, and innovation. Ms. Kincaid summarized the site and water topics and associated measures.

The site subtopics include measures for erosion and sediment control, site selection and site disturbance, redevelopment and brownfields, alternative transportation access, stormwater management, heat islands, light pollution, and post commission monitoring. Water subtopics include measures for water efficient landscaping, innovative wastewater technologies, water use reduction, and post-commissioning monitoring. Ms. Kincaid presented the example of erosion and sediment control to give attendees an idea of how the guidelines work. She explained the intent of the measure, the performance requirement, the technologies and strategies used to meet the requirement, and the deliverables necessary to demonstrate that the measures are met. Once the requirements are met, the site receives the score previously assigned for successfully achieving the measure. The score is all or nothing.

After a couple more examples, Ms. Kincaid finished by recommending a process for beginning new projects. These include assembling an interdisciplinary team, using the Guidelines checklist, setting up-front project goals, identifying a champion for each goal, using a whole systems approach, and establishing a process for follow-though. The Guidelines can be downloaded at no cost from the TJCOG website (www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/hpgtrpf.htm ).

The project has been successful. The key is that each drainage area to a LID measure is so small. Another key is that the development is an upland system, not a wetland. The rain infiltrates and then drains. Individual landowners are responsible for the maintenance of bioretention cells on their property. Maintenance has been successful (only one bioretention area has failed) mainly because it is simple. Education of homeowners has been key, and the developer was required to provide information on rain gardens.

The developer and Prince George's County conducted a comparative analysis of the Somerset watershed and a neighboring watershed with conventional development. Flow data were collected at two-minute intervals, and Mr. Coffman showed hydrographs for both actual data and modeling results. In every rainstorm event, peak discharge on the LID site is only 30% of conventional site peak discharges. In addition, LID approaches were effective in removing pollutants from stormwater.

The LID measures used in the Somerset development also reduced development costs, because there was no need for curb and gutter, stormwater ponds, or pipes and structures. Some costs are added for the rain gardens, but the overall cost savings were about $780,000.

Mr. Coffman gave examples of how LID will be used in the Prince George's County Public School System and presented a case study of the Lynbrook Estate in Melbourne, Australia. Finally, he briefly spoke about the Anacostia Watershed Toxics Alliance that will work in Maryland and Washington, D.C. to manage contaminated sediments in the Anacostia River. He concluded by saying that LID is not a tool to restore rivers. We need to do much more to restore river ecosystems, but LID is a start to restoring local hydrology.

Mr. Coffman answered several questions. One key question concerns hydrologic soils in the Piedmont, which mainly fall into classes C and D, soils with low infiltration capacity and high runoff. The response is that we should try to mimic natural conditions. So, if natural conditions include low infiltration and higher interflow and surface runoff, that is what LID techniques should attempt to allow. In this situation, LID should focus more on interflow and runoff timing than on storage. The point was also made that in many areas we have only subsoils because topsoils have been removed by decades of past agricultural practices. It could take 30 years or more of forest growth to restore the true infiltration capacities. Finally, Mr. Coffman put a global perspective on the issue. In New Zealand, where soils are all old clay with no opportunities for storage, everyone uses rainwater capture and use. In fact, most other areas in the world do this. We've been too successful at moving water away from our properties, and this has caused major problems for our water resources. It is time for us to consider and apply decentralized approaches to stormwater management.

Other issues raised included questions about data specific to systems with under-drains and questions about ways in which local governments encourage developers through credit systems, technical review, permit process, and education about the benefits of LID.

Day one activities adjourned at 1:00 p.m.