Ben Hitchings began the presentation, explaining why it is important for local governments to conduct a code and ordinance review. Local governments have multiple objectives. Code review provides a structured way to critically explore the extent to which local codes support water quality and quantity goals. Finally, the process identifies successes and opportunities for improvement.

The rating system was based on the "Siskel and Ebert approach", thumbs up (positive rating), flat, or down (needing improvement). The Upper Neuse Watershed efforts received a thumbs-up when 67% or more of local governments in the watershed supported a tool or approach. The flat thumb indicated that 33%-67% of communities supported the approach. Finally, a thumbs-down indicated that 0%-33% of communities supported the approach in question. To date, nine of the fourteen local governments in the watershed have completed the survey. These are Durham, Franklin, Orange, Person, and Wake Counties and Creedmoor, Durham, Hillsborough, and Raleigh.

Mr. Hitchings and Mr. Dreps began the review with the category of Impervious Surface Reduction. The first principle is street width. The survey responses indicate that most communities allow narrow streets in lightly traveled areas. The rating system gives this a thumbs-up. The question arises, "Are narrower street widths allowed for collector and arterial streets?"

Parking Ratios- Few communities allow parking minimums to be less than 3.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. This is a thumbs-down. However, most communities require less than or equal to 2.0 parking spaces per single-family home (thumbs-up). Some communities require fewer than 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area for shopping centers, but many do not (flat thumb). Finally, most communities only have parking minimums for new development (thumbs-down). Parking Codes- Most communities promote shared parking, which can allow for reduction of needed parking spaces in areas where uses allow (thumbs-up). However, few communities have model shared parking agreements for developers to follow (thumbs-down). Most communities allow parking ratios to be reduced if shared parking agreements are in place (thumbs-up). Driveways- Few communities permit driveway widths of less than 9 feet for one lane or 18 feet for two lanes (thumbs-down). Most communities permit shared driveways in residential developments (thumbs-up). Continuing with Best Management Practices, Mr. Hitching and Mr. Dreps spoke of several practices. Vegetated Open Channels- Some communities require curb and gutter for most residential street sections, reducing options for use of vegetated open channels (flat thumb). Some communities have established design criteria for swales that can treat stormwater, but several have not (flat thumb). Parking Lot Runoff- Most communities require a minimum percentage of parking lot area to be landscaped (thumbs-up) and allow bioretention islands and other stormwater practices within landscaped areas (thumbs-up). When both landscaping and bioretention are in place, they can be used in combination for stormwater management. Rooftop Runoff- Most communities allow rooftop runoff to be discharged to yards instead of being sent directly to a stormwater collection system (thumbs-up). Clearing and Grading- Some communities have an ordinance that requires or encourages the preservation of natural vegetation on residential development sites, but many do not (flat thumb). Stormwater Treatment- Most communities do not require stormwater to be treated for quality before being discharged (thumbs down). Under the category Critical Lands Protection, the following results were presented. Open Space Design- Some communities have review requirements for open space design that are greater than for conventional development. Such requirements can discourage developers from voluntarily pursuing open space design (flat thumb). Buffer Systems- Due to the Neuse Rules, all communities have stream buffer ordinances (thumbs-up). However, most communities do not require buffers to be wider than 50 feet or to be expanded to include sensitive areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, or the 100-year floodplain (thumbs-down). Land Conservation Incentives- Some communities provide incentives to developers or landowners to conserve additional open space, although many do not (flat thumb).

The results of the Code and Ordinance Survey will be made available to the Upper Neuse River Basin Association member communities at future meetings. In addition, results can be provided to local governments and others upon request. Contact Chris Dreps for further information (558-2702).

Mr. Coffman then spoke in detail about LID hydrologic analysis, referring to the LID Hydrology Manual, which was made available to workshop attendees. He focused on site analysis, determining the unique design storm, maintaining flow patterns and time of concentration, developing LID Runoff Curve Numbers, and compensatory techniques. He began by showing the changes between pre and post-development hydrographs, including higher peak, more volume, and earlier peak times after development. Mr. Coffman mentioned that our conventional approach of peak shaving may reduce the peak flow; however, it draws the time of flow out because it does not reduce overall volume. This can be as bad or worse for the receiving waters.

The use of effective LID techniques can minimize the change in the Runoff Curve Number, maintain the original time of concentration, and reduce the overall volume of runoff. The end result is that the post development hydrograph will, in theory, look similar to the pre-development hydrograph. He spoke of the technical difficulty of modeling and the use of the TR55 Model and its assumptions. When developing the model, they customized several of the assumptions to better model site conditions. In addition, he spoke about the goal of maintaining times of concentration (travel time), retention, and detention.

Next, Mr. Coffman summarized the site planning process using an example project. Starting with predevelopment conditions, we can assume woodland attributes like low runoff, stable hydrology, undisturbed habitat, and low Runoff Curve Numbers. The point was made that most of our local soils are clay soils of hydrologic groups C and D (low infiltration, high runoff). LID principles include the protection of soils with the greatest infiltration capacity.

The LID approach disperses and decentralizes drainage into catchment areas rather than to a centralized drainage system. This requires the maintenance of natural topography. Each catchment area receives small peak flows and low volumes. Within each catchment area, on-site recharge and pollutant treatment are increased incrementally using the "treatment train" approach, which emphasizes the use of multiple techniques in one site. Runoff and pollutant discharge can be incrementally lowered by using a series of LID techniques.

Next, Mr. Coffman spoke about the use of models to evaluate LID techniques. One such model now under development analyzes hydrology site by site and routes sites together to analyze flow at a discharge point. The model uses the Hydrologic Simulation Model Fortran (HSPF), which models each individual stormwater control attribute of a site. He then explained the interface of the model and showed examples of model results for specific BMPs.

Mr. Coffman discussed several benefits of filtering water through soil, such as:

• Flow retention and detention;
• Pollutant filtration (phytoremediation);
• Lowering of water temperatures; and
• Ease of maintenance (typical landscaping maintenance).

Mr. Coffman then discussed the ease of maintenance, which usually consists of annual removal of sediments and re-mulching. In addition, he discussed other details such as the importance of having a bypass to the gutter with large areas of runoff, the seasonal effectiveness of the systems (the systems work well in the winter), and the attractiveness of bioretention systems.

Mr. Coffman then began a discussion of the application of LID to urban retrofit. LID can be used successfully for urban retrofit because the guiding principle-- the use of multiple methods for achieving pre-development hydrology-- is also applicable in these areas. He showed numerous examples of the use of LID techniques for urban stormwater management, including roof storage and treatment (Germany, Denmark, Portland, Toronto) and biofiltration for parking lots and roof runoff (Prince George's County, Portland, Navy Yard in D.C.). Major points included:

• Greatest challenge in urban landscaping is getting water to plants, and LID provides an answer to this problem;
• Because LID is based on multiple systems approach, opportunities for small improvements are numerous and easy to do;
• There are several ways to handle a runoff problem; and
• These approaches are commercially viable (and there are companies already providing the services).

Finally, Mr. Coffman made the point that we have to examine our urban areas for retrofit opportunities. These opportunities are all around us, and the key is to find them and look for ways to correct existing problems. Government can lead by example, and we have many channels through which to operate, including:

• Capital Improvements Program (restoration projects- EPA 319 grants/Corps of Engineers)
• Facility and Infrastructure Maintenance Programs
• Revitalization Programs (Streetscapes)
• Brownfields
• New Facility Construction
• Redevelopment Codes

In addition, other institutions can also be effective implementers of LID. Environmental groups, watershed associations, business associations, churches, private property owners, DOT, DOD, HOAs, media, developers, and community policing programs are all potential participants.

Sessions generally included an introduction from the facilitator, brief presentations by issue experts, and facilitated discussions on the following: barriers to implementation; strategies for implementation; local examples or strategies for implementation; and available resources. The following summarizes the discussions from both the morning and afternoon sessions for each of the three topics.

Non-traditional BMPs

Facilitator:	Ken Krulik, Kerr-Tar Council of Governments
Experts:	Nancy White, North Carolina State University
	Michael Ortosky, Soil & Environmental Consultants
	Larry Coffman, Prince George's County, MD

The session experts introduced themselves and gave their backgrounds. They identified barriers to LID, including the need to coordinate designs with local governments, to have demonstration projects, to use natural resources as much as possible in design, and to develop practical experience in the region. On the issue of strategies, tying LID to the bigger picture of smart growth and raising public awareness were the major points made by the experts.

Barriers

• Ignorance of the techniques
• Education/Lack thereof about how to use LID. Lack of training.
• Inflexible and prescriptive regulations (local and state)
• Lack of coordination between agencies
• Integration of scales (Have not tried yet? How much can be done?)
• Costs (Is bioretention cheaper? $ value and environmental value, conventional (short-run) economic mindset)
• Acceptance level by government (DOT, DENR) low
• General acceptance (tradition, mindsets, institutional thinking)
• Effectiveness of data. Performance data (how effective are LID measures?) and data about level of treatment/hydrology needed.
• Performance (measures, standards)?
• Lack of local demonstration projects (on our soils)
• Competition for funding
• Marketability
• Lack of adequate representation across local population- disparity of representation
• Aesthetics

Strategies

• Education and Coordination (local government, homeowners, developers, designers; Low Impact Design Academy; demonstration projects; pilot areas; bioretention similarities to septic systems or yard maintenance)
• Education of state agencies and cooperative extension agents
• Get word out to schools/teachers
• Implementation with ongoing education programs (teach the young people--example of Camp Schmidt in Prince George's County, Maryland. NC Museum of Life and Science in Durham).
• Responsibility of management/costs
• Differing solutions for differing areas
• Homeowner education/money set aside with HOA for management
• Simple transition in rural areas (very compatible with rural residential development)
• More creativity needed in urban areas
• Don't assume impacts don't exist in rural areas
• Impacts can occur at any level (NSW, ecosystems), so best to use LID
• Offer performance-based approaches in local regulations (reducing zoning density is not the only solution to the water resource protection problem, and it can cause other more serious problems)
• Recognize need for demonstration projects in rural and urban areas. Share existing project information (i.e., Carpenter Village in Morrisville) with local governments and state agencies.
• Linkage to watersheds (impacts to sensitive areas)
• Link to growth management strategies to avoid potential for LID to promote sprawl
• Beware of high expectations in pilot projects (current technology fails, needs change)
• Use of real numbers to show cost/benefits of LID (show actual $ benefits, value of land, landscaping can apply to existing ordinances)

Local Implementation

• UDO-- offers an opportunity to incorporate strategies?
• Parallel ordinances/regulations
• Use through building codes
• Watershed management plans (include LID, education, integration (of LID) principles)
• Pilot study--good for education at local/county level
• Open space plans
• Growth management plans
• Educational workshops relating to LID (Public officials, kids, training for local staff-- IOG)
• Co-housing--use BMPs to maintain hydrologic functions
• Environmental currency ($ figure)
• Stormwater utility (public awareness)
• Land use management ordinance (include structural controls, include stormwater management where not previously existing)
• Constant education (citizen/official training-IOG). Citizens can also educate their council/commission members about the need to use innnovation.
• Separate combined sewer and stormwater systems
• Focus education on loss of groundwater resources with conventional practice
• Address local issues of inequity (i.e., don't depend on the less-wealthy rural governments to fund the majority of our watershed protection strategy). Those who use the resource should help pay a fair amount to protect it.

Resources

• IOG- Education
• Nonprofit Advisory Group at local level
• Center for Watershed Protection
• Water Resources Research Institute- Education, LID Academy?
• Upper Neuse River Basin Association- Education of local governments, watershed plans, grants writing
• NC State Bio. and Ag. Engineering/Cooperative Extension Service
• Low Impact Development Center-- project assistance
• Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
• Soil and Water Conservation Service/Natural Resource Conservation Service
• EPA (promotes LID and sponsored the national LID Design Manual)
• Army Corps of Engineers
• Grassroots organizations (Eno River Association, Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association)
• Natural Resources Defense Council ("Stormwater Strategies" CD)
• Local media (mini-seminars with TV, newspapers)
• Greenworks website (www.greenworks.org-searchword "bioretention")
• We, local citizens, are the #1 LID resource

Milt Rhodes led a discussion on impervious surfaces, and made the following major points:

• Zoning primarily determines the amount of impervious area that will cover an area;
• There is a need to define more precisely and consistently what impervious cover is;
• Need for linking impervious areas with the goals of water quality and flood protection
• Is recharge a goal?;
• Zoning controls land use, use controls parking, and parking drives runoff. Zoning is too rigid;
• There is a need to better understand and address conflicts between state goals and regulations and local goals;
• There are several levels of impervious surface types, and in our region the clay subsoils can effectively become impervious when compacted. We should be conservative in our estimation of runoff from sites.

Obstacles, strategies, and local implementation examples identified during the group discussion are listed below.

Obstacles

• What is "pre-development"? (LID goal to achieve pre-development hydrology)
• Local and state codes can impede reduction of impervious cover or flexible approaches
• Pre and post comparisons can limit the effectiveness of redevelopment
• BMP manual doesn't reward innovation
• Fee in lieu of for instream controls-- EPA shot this down in Raleigh
• Fire codes require very wide roads and cul-de-sacs

We convey runoff from impervious surfaces directly into the most critical areas (streams, riparian areas with high water tables)

Strategies

• Use new tools to supplement existing (impervious area) classifications
• Clear up conflicts between state rules and local goals
• Create infiltration performance standards (for new development- redevelopment, too?)
• Create LID standards (and evaluate existing standards)
• Watershed-wide averaging approach
• Eliminate parking standard for redeveloper
• Soil amending
• Reducing site disturbance (clustering as one method for doing this)
• Engineered systems (i.e., porous systems)
• Non-engineered systems
• Achieving a balance between engineered and non-engineered systems
• National standards become state/local guidelines (state mandates)
• Research-- what can the state do?

Local Implementation

• Biogen Campus example (parking deck for more lab space)
• Centennial Campus on NCSU (Site plans approved by city, but currently has conventional stormwater design)
• Green roofs/roof meadows (Cameron Village is an opportunity)
• Wake County Public Schools example
• Duke Forest/Golf Course (large pond structure, wetland system, wetland center design)
• NC Vet. Center stormwater plan
• Pigeon House Branch Restoration
• Study pervious pavement systems that have been in place locally for a long time and find out more about their infiltration rates.

Resources

• NCDWQ Traditional Neighborhood Development Guidelines
• NCDWQ Best Management Practices Guidelines (Draft)

Jane Korest began the session speaking about the Durham City/County Resource Protection Ordinance. First, the approach was to plan which critical areas should not be developed (floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes). In addition, the ordinance requires stream buffers from 50 to 150 feet, depending upon stream location and classification. The approach uses the development codes to protect water resources. Any future amendments to these requirements must be passed by the City Council and County Commission. Several amendments have been made, including tree preservation, floodplain protection, 25-feet wetland buffers, and steep (25% or more) slope preservation. In addition, the ordinance identifies streams from both the USGS and Soil Survey maps for protection.

Next, Rick Bailey spoke about the Wake County Watershed Assessment and Plan. Sediment is the driving issue behind the process. The assessment divides the county into 80 subwatersheds, analyzes water quality and habitat conditions in those watersheds, and attempts to correlate conditions with imperviousness in each watershed. Currently, there are 13 local watersheds identified as degraded, and most healthy watersheds are in agricultural use. The county has a $15 million bond for land acquisition and is attempting to use conservation easements to stretch those funds. The highest priority watersheds are water supply watersheds and high quality natural areas with high development pressures.

Finally, Rich Shaw spoke about the Orange County Environmental Resource Conservation Department's Lands Legacy Program, which was established in the year 2000. The County's overall approach focuses on planning, regulation, and lands acquisition (1997 and 2001 bond issues provided more than $10 million for land protection). Through the Lands Legacy Program, Orange County partners with the Triangle Land Conservancy, Duke University, UNC, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, and others to protect lands. The program focuses on protecting the ten water supply watersheds, historical and cultural sites, and important agricultural lands within the County. Of particular interest are large tracts in the headwaters of the Eno River.

Obstacles

• Political divisions
• Compromise
• Lack of money
• Public use/access (is public use negative for the resource?)
• Green space protection considered a luxury
• Identification of critical lands--how do we define "critical"?
• Development pressures influence financial potential of land protection programs
• RTP--growth producer
• "Ecological integrity" is not understood. What is the value of it?
• Loss of riparian function
• Hard to get developers to take advantage of incentives
• Long-term maintenance
• Arbitrary nature of soft buffer
• Performance criteria (difficulty in establishing)
• Coordinating institutional efforts
• Farm ownership is lost

Strategies

• Question how to achieve bond success
• Educate landowners on options available to them
• Good Public Relations
• Find money/resources for voluntary land protection
• On the ground project
• Make sure 1st few parcels are good choices
• Wildlife corridors

Resources

• Farm Bill (agriculture lands preservation)
• Clean Water Management Trust Fund
• Development code
• Local bond funds
• Regional Greenprint (Triangle Greenprint Project)
• Present-use taxation value of properties
• FEMA buyouts

The SUNOM is a scoping approach for estimating average nutrient loads. Its hydrology is based on the SIMPLE method and surface loading is based on event mean concentration. Tetra Tech has enhanced the tool to model upland and sediment metals, incorporate additional land uses, separates pervious and impervious portions of surface loading, and calibrates loading estimates to measure event mean concentration. In addition, the tool employs the NRCS Runoff Curve Number Method (USDA 1986), which uses soil type and land cover to establish index values related to runoff depth. When combined with land area, this can estimate runoff volume. The tool is based in Microsoft Excel, and the user works primarily in three spreadsheets (site data, BMPs, and total output).

Mr. Clements showed examples of how the spreadsheets work, including how BMPs can be selected from a locally-approved menu and can be applied in sequence, how drainage areas are defined, the assignment of land use to BMP drainage areas, and the interpretation of the output.

1. Critically think about where we are going
2. Commit to advancing implementation (technical and financial commitment)
3. Conceptualize it (how does it all fit together?)
4. Communicate about it
5. Capture it
6. Control it
7. Cool it down
8. Clean it up

For LID to be successully pursued in the region, leadership will be required at a number of levels- levels that correspond to each of the ribs in the LID Umbrella. The concept of the LID Academy, a collaborative institution that would promote local understanding and use of the LID principles, is one that should be discussed and pursued by many organizations represented at the workshop.

Finally, Mr. Davis referred to internet resources, pointing out the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team's "Top 10 Internet Resources for Low Impact Development", handed out at the workshop. The Low Impact Development Center website (www.lowimpactdevelopment.org) has a link to this listing.

Finally, Mr. Dreps thanked attendees for their participation and reminded them to fill out an evaluation form. Evaluations are summarized in Appendix C.

The workshop adjourned at 3:30 p.m.