EPA-841-F-10-004 | August 2010 | http://www.epa.

gov

Green Infrastructure
Case Studies:
Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

C A S E S T U D I E S

EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

I
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................................................1
Background...................................................................................................................................................................1
Case Studies..................................................................................................................................................................4
1. Common Drivers and Regulatory Framework..............................................................................................................7
CSO and MS4 Requirements .......................................................................................................................................7
Asset Management .......................................................................................................................................................9
Flood Control................................................................................................................................................................9
Larger Sustainability Goals . ......................................................................................................................................10
2. Menu of Local Green Infrastructure Policies...............................................................................................................13
Stormwater Regulations..............................................................................................................................................13
Review and Revise Local Codes.................................................................................................................................17
Demonstration and Pilot Projects................................................................................................................................18
Capital and Transportation Projects............................................................................................................................19
Education and Outreach..............................................................................................................................................20
Stormwater Fees..........................................................................................................................................................21
Stormwater Fee Discounts .........................................................................................................................................22
Other Incentives..........................................................................................................................................................23
3. Policy Implementation: Barriers, Lessons Learned and Realities of Each Policy....................................................25
Overview.....................................................................................................................................................................25
First Step Policies........................................................................................................................................................26
Second Step Policies...................................................................................................................................................27
Third Step Policies......................................................................................................................................................29
4. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................................31
Integrating Policies.....................................................................................................................................................31
Setting Priorities..........................................................................................................................................................31
Long-Term Planning and Investment..........................................................................................................................32
Case Study: Alachua County, Florida ..............................................................................................................................35
Case Study: Chicago, Illinois.............................................................................................................................................37
Case Study: Emeryville, California...................................................................................................................................41
Case Study: Lenexa, Kansas..............................................................................................................................................43

i
 Case Study: Olympia, Washington....................................................................................................................................47
Case Study: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania...........................................................................................................................49
Case Study: Portland, Oregon...........................................................................................................................................53
Case Study: San Jose, California.......................................................................................................................................57
Case Study: Santa Monica, California..............................................................................................................................59
Case Study: Seattle, Washington.......................................................................................................................................61
Case Study: Stafford County, Virginia.............................................................................................................................65
Case Study: Wilsonville, Oregon.......................................................................................................................................67
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................................................69

ii Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Executive Summary

This report presents the common trends in how 12 local This report originally focused on local stormwater regulations
governments developed and implemented stormwater policies alone, but further investigation revealed that the real presence
to support green infrastructure. The local policies examined of green infrastructure in a community was due to many other
in this paper include interagency cooperation, enforcement programs and policies that can be adopted by a wide range
and management issues and integration with state and federal of communities.
regulations. While a strong motivation for these policies and
programs is innovation in stormwater management, many BACKGROUND
communities are moving past the era of single objective
Many communities in the United States, ranging in size,
spending and investing in runoff reduction and stormwater
population and geographic location, are looking for ways
management strategies that have multiple benefits. Green
to assure that the quality of their rivers, streams, lakes and
infrastructure approaches have a range of benefits for the
estuaries is protected from the impacts of development and
social, environmental and economic conditions of a commu-
urbanization. This case study report describes a dozen cities
nity (see Table 1). Not only do these case studies include
and counties that are using green infrastructure approaches
success stories for building a comprehensive green infrastruc-
to reduce imperviousness and preserve natural open space
ture program, but they also provide insight into the barriers
throughout a watershed and at the neighborhood scale, as
and failures these communities experienced while trying to
well as adding green infrastructure practices at the site level.
create a stormwater management system that includes more
Not all of the communities in this study are using green
green infrastructure approaches.
infrastructure at all three scales, but they are mixing and
matching a common set of policies and programs to protect
The following chapters provide descriptions of the most
water resources and add value to their communities at the
common and influential green infrastructure policies, a brief
same time.
background on how each approach works and examples from
relevant case studies about results, barriers and processes for
Traditional development practices cover large areas of the
implementation. Many of the policies work in tandem and fit
ground with impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways
within a context of several other green infrastructure poli-
and buildings. Once such development occurs, rainwater
cies and programs. The greenest cities in terms of stormwater
cannot infiltrate into the ground, but rather runs offsite at
management use a wide range of policies and a number of
levels that are much higher than would naturally occur. The
approaches that focus on both public and private properties.
collective force of such rainwater scours streams, erodes
stream banks and thereby causes large quantities of sediment

Executive Summary
1
and other entrained pollutants to enter waterbodies each time cases frequently overflow due to precipitation events. In the
it rains. late 20th century, most cities that attempted to reduce sewer
overflows did so by separating combined sewers, expanding
In addition to the problems caused by stormwater and treatment capacity or storage within the sewer system, or by
nonpoint source runoff, many older cities (including many replacing broken or decaying pipes. However, these practices
of the largest cities in the United States), have combined can be enormously expensive and take decades to implement.
sewage and stormwater pipes which periodically and in some Moreover, piped stormwater and combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) may also, in some cases, have the adverse effects of
Table 1: Green Infrastructure Benefits by Type upsetting the hydrological balance by moving water out of the
watershed, thus bypassing local streams and ground water.
Benefit Type Many of these events also have adverse impacts and costs on
source water for municipal drinking water utilities.
•  Increase carbon sequestration
•  Improve air quality Green infrastructure is a comprehensive approach to water
•  Additional recreational space quality protection defined by a range of natural and built
•  Efficient land use systems that can occur at the regional, community and site
•  Improve human health scales. Linkages between sites and between practices within
•  Flood protection one site ensure that stormwater is slowed, infiltrated where
•  Drinking water source protection possible and managed with consideration for natural hydro-
Environmental logic processes. Comprehensive stormwater management with
•  Replenish groundwater
green infrastructure must consider:
•  Improve watershed health
•  Protect or restore wildlife habitat
●● How to protect and preserve existing natural resources,
•  Reduce sewer overflow events
•  Restore impaired waters ●● Where to direct development in the community, and
•  Meet regulatory requirements for
receiving waters ●● How to develop on individual sites.

•  Reduce hard infrastructure con- At the larger regional or watershed scale, green infrastructure
struction costs is the interconnected network of preserved or restored natural
•  Maintain aging infrastructure lands and waters that provide essential environmental func-
•  Increase land values tions. Large-scale green infrastructure may include habitat
Economic
•  Encourage economic development corridors and water resource protection. At the community
•  Reduce energy consumption and neighborhood scale, green infrastructure incorporates
and costs planning and design approaches such as compact, mixed-use
•  Increase life cycle cost savings development, parking reduction strategies and urban forestry
that reduces impervious surfaces and creates walkable,
•  Establish urban greenways attractive communities. At the site scale, green infrastructure
•  Provide pedestrian and mimics natural systems by absorbing stormwater back into the
bicycle access
ground (infiltration), using trees and other natural vegetation
•  Create attractive streetscapes and
to convert it to water vapor (evapotranspiration) and using
Social rooftops that enhance livability and
urban green space rain barrels or cisterns to capture and reuse stormwater. These
•  Educate the public about their role natural processes manage stormwater runoff in a way that
in stormwater management maintains or restores the site’s natural hydrology. Site-level
•  Urban heat island mitigation green infrastructure is also referred to as low-impact devel-
opment or LID, and can include rain gardens, porous pave-
ments, green roofs, infiltration planters, trees and tree boxes

2 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
Figure 1: Communities across the United States from (clockwise from top left) Olympia, Philadelphia, Seattle and Lenexa, are using a range of policies to
add new green infrastructure.

and rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses such as toilet encourage green infrastructure where appropriate. Although
flushing and landscape irrigation. For more information on this report originally focused on municipalities with innova-
specific green infrastructure practices and how they function, tive stormwater regulations, it quickly expanded to examine
visit http://www.epa.gov/greeninfrastructure. the range of policy types that result in green infrastructure
throughout a community (see Figure 1). The paper includes
These processes represent a new approach to stormwater three main chapters that are intended to provide the most
management that is not only sustainable and environmentally valuable lessons learned from the 12 case studies about
friendly, but cost-effective as well. Municipalities are real- how to implement a local green infrastructure program. The
izing that green infrastructure can be a solution to the many first chapter, Common Drivers and Regulatory Framework,
and increasing water-related challenges facing municipali- explains what motivates the case study communities to set
ties, including flood control, combined sewer overflows, up local green infrastructure policies and programs. The
Clean Water Act requirements and basic asset management second chapter presents a Menu of Local Green Infrastructure
of publicly owned treatment works. Communities need new Policies. This menu describes the nine policy types common
solutions and strategies to ensure that they can continue to to most or all of the municipalities in the case study, including
grow while maintaining and improving their water resources. examples about how the policies have been implemented.
The next chapter, Policy Implementation, provides guid-
This report is meant to serve as a policy guide for municipali- ance on how the policies can complement one another, how
ties that understand the value of green infrastructure and hope to overcome barriers and how to adapt different policies to
to create local policies and programs to allow, require and local needs and priorities. Finally, 12 two-page case studies

Executive Summary
3
provide.specific.information.about.each.municipality.and.
the.green.infrastructure.program.as.it.was.developed.in.the.
local.context..
Common Policies Used in 12 Green
Infrastructure Cases:
CASE STUDIES •. Stormwater.Regulation
The.12.cases.analyzed.in.this.study.represent.a.broad.cross- •. Review.and.Revise.Local.Codes
section.of.the.country.in.terms.of.hydrologic.regime,.popula-
•. Demonstration.and.Pilot.Projects
tion.and.demographics,.government.structure.and.geographic.
and.political.climate..But.there.are.common.trends.in.how. •. Capital.and.Transportation.Projects
local.governments.developed.and.implemented.new.storm- •. Education.and.Outreach
water.policies,.including.interagency.cooperation,.enforce-
ment.and.management.issues.and.overlap.with.state.and. •. Stormwater.Fees
federal.regulations..While.a.strong.motivation.for.these.poli- •. Stormwater.Fee.Discounts
cies.and.programs.is.innovation.in.stormwater.management,.
•. Other.Incentives
many.communities.are.moving.past.the.era.of.single.objective.
spending.and.investing.in.strategies.that.have.multiple.bene-
fits..Green.infrastructure.approaches.have.a.range.of.benefits.
for.the.social,.environmental.and.economic.conditions.of.a. The.most.common.trend.in.successful.case.studies.is.the.pres-
community.(see.Table.1)..These.cases.include.success.stories. ence.of.many.different.policies.and.programs..Communities.
for.building.a.comprehensive.green.infrastructure.program,. such.as.Chicago,.Illinois,.Alachua.County.in.Florida,.
but.they.also.provide.insight.into.the.barriers.and.failures. Philadelphia,.Pennsylvania,.and.Lenexa,.Kansas,.not.only.
experienced.while.trying.to.create.a.stormwater.management. passed.a.new.stormwater.ordinance.for.new.development;.
system.that.includes.more.green.infrastructure.approaches.. they.also.devised.new.funding.systems.for.capital.projects,.
provided.incentives.for.redevelopment.and.retrofit.projects.
and.developed.public.education.and.outreach.programs..Many.
of.the.successes.came.within.the.context.of.larger.“green.
12 Green Infrastructure
plans”.and.other.comprehensive.plans.that.supported.or.were.
Case Studies supported.by.green.infrastructure.policies..In.addition,.water-
•. Alachua.County,.Florida shed.planning.for.larger.jurisdictions.and.sewershed.plans.for.
•. Philadelphia,.Pennsylvania urban.communities.helped.decision.makers.prioritize,.monitor.
and.validate.public.investments.for.green.infrastructure.
•. Portland,.Oregon
•. Seattle,.Washington A.total.of.eight.common.policies.and.programs.appeared.
throughout.the.selected.cases.and.are.presented.above.as.
•. San.Jose,.California
a.menu.of.policy.options.that.other.jurisdictions.should.
•. Santa.Monica,.California consider.when.looking.for.ways.to.add.more.green.infrastruc-
ture.in.their.own.communities..Because.these.policies.were.
•. Stafford.County,.Virginia
implemented.in.diverse.situations.and.communities,.they.are.
•. Wilsonville,.Oregon applicable.for.a.range.of.local.contexts..Not.every.community.
•. Olympia,.Washington will.be.able.to.use.all.eight.policy.approaches,.but.most.can.
choose.some.combination.of.the.policies.in.the.menu.based.
•. Chicago,.Illinois on.their.existing.programs.and.level.of.expertise..
•. Emeryville,.California
Table.2.lists.the.12.communities.and.which.of.the.common.
•. Lenexa,.Kansas
policies.they.used..The.policies.are.organized.into.two.catego-
ries:.public.sector.policies.and.private.sector.policies..The.

4 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
public sector policies and programs can be set up internally relevant cases about results, barriers and processes for imple-
by government agencies. Private sector policies are those that mentation. No single policy or program will be a panacea for
apply to private development and private property owners, the challenge of how to integrate green infrastructure into the
including commercial and residential properties. local landscape. Many of the policies work in tandem and fit
within a context of several other complementary policies and
The following chapters include descriptions of the most programs. The greenest cities in terms of stormwater manage-
common and influential green infrastructure policies, a brief ment use a wide range of policies and a number of approaches
background on how each approach works and examples from that focus on both public and private sectors.

Table 2: Case Studies and Common Policy Approaches

Public Private

City
Demonstration Street Capital Local code Education & Stormwater Stormwater Fee-based Other
projects retrofits projects review outreach regulation fee incentives incentives

Alachua County, FL X X X

Philadelphia, PA X X X X X X X X

Portland, OR X X X X X X X X X

Seattle, WA X X X X X X X X X

San Jose, CA X X X X

Santa Monica, CA X X X X X X X

Stafford County, VA X X X

Wilsonville, OR X X X X X

Olympia, WA X X X X X X

Chicago, IL X X X X X X X

Emeryville, CA X X X X X

Lenexa, KS X X X X X X

Total 11 10 8 10 7 12 7 3 4

Executive Summary
5
1 Common Drivers
and Regulatory Framework

Green.infrastructure.policies.can.achieve.multiple.municipal. Green.infrastructure.is.associated.with.a.variety.of.environ-
goals.at.the.same.time.as.meeting.Federal.Clean.Water. mental,.economic.and.human.health.benefits,.many.of.which.
Act.requirements,.making.them.useful.and.efficient.policy. go.hand-in-hand..Green.infrastructure.benefits.are.included.in.
options.for.local.decision.makers..The.communities.in.these. Table.1.of.the.Introduction..Most.municipalities.in.this.case.
case.studies.are.not.motivated.to.build.green.infrastructure. study.report.provide.examples.of.how.green.infrastructure.can.
programs.by.Federal.regulations.alone..Although.they.may. meet.overlapping.goals.and.achieve.widespread.political.and.
identify.overlaps.with.Clean.Water.Act.requirements,.these. public.support.that.translates.into.more.sustainable.programs.
local.governments.are.making.investments.in.green.infra- and.policies..This.chapter.outlines.the.multiple.benefits.of.
structure.because.of.many.other.community,.economic.and. green.infrastructure.and.explains.the.ways.that.communities.
environmental.benefits.. are.using.them.as.motivation.for.their.local.green.infrastruc-
ture.policies.and.programs.

CSO and MS4 Requirements

Local Agencies Can Use Green Federal.Clean.Water.Act.requirements,.such.as.the.Combined.
Infrastructure to Achieve Goals: Sewer.Overflow.(CSO).Control.Policy.and.National.Pollutant.
•. Planning Discharge.Elimination.System.(NPDES).permit.program,.
must.ultimately.be.implemented.at.the.local.level..Many.
•. Transportation
municipalities.see.major.inconsistencies.between.EPA.guid-
•. Economic.Development ance.for.using.green.infrastructure.to.manage.wet.weather.
•. Housing flows.and.enforcement.of.requirements.that.call.for.more.
conventional.practices..Cities.argue.that.EPA.is.promoting.
•. Parks.and.Recreation innovative.solutions.without.changing.the.standards.and.
•. Water measures.for.complying.with.water.quality.standards.

•. Health.and.Human.Services
Furthermore,.local.governments.find.it.difficult.to.confi-
•. Public.Works dently.reallocate.funds.for.green.infrastructure.projects.
without.better.guidance.and.more.confidence.that.the.regu-
latory.standards.will.eventually.support.their.investments..
Investments.in.publicly.owned.treatment.works.are.largely.
compliance.driven,.which.provides.little.freedom.for.local.

1—Common Drivers and Regulatory Framework

7
policy makers to implement watershed-based or decentralized
green infrastructure solutions that may not yet have the data
necessary to demonstrate performance and receive regulatory
credit (both because of the amount of time needed for these
practices to show long-term performance, as well as limita-
tions in common data collection methods). Through the Green
Infrastructure Action Strategy, EPA and its partners seek to
address research gaps, develop protocols to quantify benefits
and collect more empirical data. Ideally, this effort will
provide more regulatory predictability and support for explicit
inclusion of green infrastructure into permits, enforcement
orders and long-term control plans (LTCPs).1

Older cities are looking for solutions to their CSO problems Figure 2: Lake Lenexa in Kansas is part of 240 acres purchased by the
City of Lenexa to protect open space and natural resources, serve as a
that are affordable and meet the requirements of EPA’s CSO public park and educational area, and provide large-scale green infra-
Control Policy. A few cities, such as Philadelphia, have structure for NPDES permit compliance.
found effective means for meeting these compliance needs
and altering LTCPs to include green infrastructure.2 EPA’s into local stormwater codes as part of NPDES requirements
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is (see Figure 2). Updated state permits are starting to more
currently working on guidance for implementing green infra- directly address the links between imperviousness, runoff and
structure as part of a LTCP.3 water quality, from the larger land use scales down to specific
site designs. EPA is now developing guidance for state permit
NPDES regulations require development and implementation writers that will expand the requirements for using green
of a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) program infrastructure to meet MS4 permit requirements.6 As state
to address post-construction runoff from newly developed and permits incorporate more explicit language about using green
redeveloped areas. Some cities, such as Lenexa, Kansas,4 and infrastructure, more municipalities will start to adopt local
San Jose, California,5 are incorporating green infrastructure programs knowing they can receive regulatory credit towards
NPDES permit requirements.

EPA recognizes that increased coordination among National

1
  See EPA’s Green Infrastructure Web site for “Regulatory Integration” guidance Program offices, Regional EPA offices and OECA would
and examples of LTCPs and NPDES permit language for states and municipalities:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/regulators.cfm be beneficial and help avoid inconsistent policies, permits,
2
  Philadelphia Water Department’s CSO Long Term Control Plan Update: http:// enforcement orders and LTCPs. Although EPA recognizes the
www.phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/documents_and_data/cso_long_term_
control_plan
inconsistencies between innovative local policies and national
3
  One of the potential issues that may arise in the use of green infrastructure in
Clean Water Act requirements, the current state of the regula-
treatment of wastewater flows is the development of performance expectations and tory environment may continue, at least in the short term, to
determination of compliance. Work is ongoing on tools to quantify performance of
different types of controls. The Office of Water and EPA New England work refer- make it difficult for cities to count their investments toward
enced above may be of use.
green infrastructure as meeting Federal stormwater and CSO
In wet weather enforcement actions, a growing number of Supplemental Environ-
mental Projects (SEPs) have involved the use of green infrastructure techniques to requirements. However, EPA recently announced plans to
mitigate environmental damage. To date, green infrastructure SEPs have been used
in settlements with the following municipalities:
initiate national rulemaking to establish a program to reduce
  • The Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners of the City of Mobile, Alabama stormwater discharges from new development and redevelop-
  • The Board of County Commissioners of Hamilton, Ohio and the City of
Cincinnati ment and make other regulatory improvements to strengthen
  • The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and the District of Columbia
  • The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Maryland
its stormwater program.7 The municipalities in this case study
  • Sanitation District No.1 of Northern Kentucky
  • Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky
4
  Lenexa, Kansas’s Rain to Recreation policies: http://www.raintorecreation.org/
policies.html   http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/gi_memo_enforce.pdf
6

5
  San Jose, California’s urban runoff regulations: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ 7
  More information on Proposed National Rulemaking to Strengthen the Stormwater
planning/stormwater/how_regulated.asp Program: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking.cfm

8 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
report have found opportunities to combine multiple program green infrastructure to divert flow from sewer systems,
objectives, but many have made separate allocations of staff gray infrastructure costs can be reduced, i.e. operations and
time and funding to move forward green infrastructure strate- maintenance costs can be decreased and future systems can
gies without regulatory support or credit. be smaller.

Asset Management Cities such as Philadelphia are passing green infrastructure

policies as a means for better managing existing infrastructure
City and county governments have limited financial resources
assets and avoiding future operations and maintenance costs.
to allocate to the many competing demands under local
The Philadelphia Water Department estimates that its new
control. Municipalities are responsible for implementing and
stormwater standard, which requires properties to retain the
enforcing expensive Clean Water Act requirements, while
first inch on site, has reduced CSO inputs by a quarter billion
also trying to pay for a large number of other programs, both
gallons, thereby saving the City $170 million. These savings
environmental and non-environmental. EPA estimated in the
are derived from the fact that one square mile of impervious
2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey that nationwide capital
cover has been redeveloped under Philadelphia’s updated
investments for controlling stormwater and wastewater pollu-
stormwater regulations, and the cost of storing that same
tion over a 20-year period will be $202.5 billion, including
volume of stormwater in a CSO tank or tunnel comes to $170
$54.8 billion for combined sewer overflow corrections and $9
million in capital, not including operations and maintenance
billion for stormwater management. With decreased funding
costs. After two years of effectively enforced stormwater
from the Federal government to pay for operations and main-
regulations, the City now estimates that two square miles
tenance of existing public stormwater systems as well as costs
are using green infrastructure, saving about $340 million
associated with implementing LTCPs, local governments and
in capital.
citizens must identify and select the most cost-effective solu-
tions to meet regulatory requirements.
Lenexa, Kansas, compared three alternative stormwater
management approaches and found that on-site detention
In light of these predicted costs for stormwater, wastewater
with green infrastructure costs about 25 percent less than the
and combined sewer systems, using green infrastructure as
old approach of retrofitting and reactive solutions.8 Portland,
a form of asset management is a major driver behind the
Oregon, uses infiltration practices to keep millions of gallons
shift towards establishing a hybrid system of gray, piped
of stormwater out of the “Big Pipe” it is constructing. Not
infrastructure and green, vegetated infrastructure. By using
only does this reduce current costs for conveyance and treat-
ment, but it will help ensure that the Big Pipe will be able to
handle increased inputs as the City develops over time. All
three communities consider green infrastructure to be a smart
investment of public funds to complement and extend the life
of gray infrastructure projects as well. Many communities are
starting to employ green infrastructure solutions as a more
effective and cost efficient solution for meeting the multiple
demands on publicly owned treatment works and stormwater
management systems.

Flood Control
Costs and concerns associated with more frequent flood
events have driven many communities to pass green infra-
Figure 3: Euclid Park in Santa Monica, California, includes a depressed structure legislation as a way to mitigate future flooding
area with storage underneath, doubling as a public amenity and storm-
water structure. and better manage runoff from existing development.

  Lenexa’s cost-savings: http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/Stormwater/lessexpensive.html

8

1—Common Drivers and Regulatory Framework

9
Communities such as Lenexa, Kansas, and Stafford County, to purchase and protect land in floodplains to provide more
Virginia, were hard hit by major floods in 1998 and again predictable flood control.10 The Milwaukee Metropolitan
in 2004. Both use green infrastructure approaches, such as Sewer District’s Greenseams program protects existing open
rain gardens, street swales and other retention methods to space and develops it as green infrastructure with natural
provide additional flood protection during peak events. Both flood storage.11 The Milwaukee Conservation Plan reports
communities had public support for these newer natural potential cost savings of this green infrastructure approach as
systems because of the inability of traditional systems to compared with conventional flood control alternatives.12 More
provide adequate flood protection. Larger and older commu- and more local governments are anticipating future flood risks
nities, including Chicago and Philadelphia, assume cost and establishing interconnected systems of functional land-
savings associated with green infrastructure for flood control scapes to protect floodplains and prevent flood damage.
and prevention. Chicago’s Green Alley Program was started
in large part as a response to homeowner complaints about Larger Sustainability Goals
flooding in alleys and adjacent basements.
Although Federal and State regulations are part of the
impetus driving municipal green infrastructure programs,
many of the communities surveyed have larger sustainability
plans and efforts that are supported by and provide support
to green infrastructure policies. San Jose’s Green Vision,13
Philadelphia’s Sustainability Initiatives14 or Mayor Daley’s
goal to make Chicago the most environmentally friendly city
in the world are all examples of efforts that transcend compli-
ance of the Clean Water Act. Green infrastructure policies can
be used to achieve both water-related goals and a host of other
community, economic and environmental benefits.

Municipalities with the most well-established green infra-

structure programs have identified synergies in mission
statements across agencies, from departments of transporta-
Figure 4: The Buffalo Bayou Promenade in Houston, Texas, retrofitted a
formerly impervious area and restored this major drainage way as green tion and public works to environmental agencies. Planning
infrastructure. The Bayou now has improved floodwater conveyance, in departments can use green infrastructure to promote more
addition to providing other community and environmental benefits. Photo
courtesy of Tom Fox, http://www.asla.org/2009awards/104.html. efficient land use and change local codes to ensure that
projects have both environmental and economic benefits.
Economic development agencies can use green infra-
Municipalities of all sizes are concerned about flooding
structure to improve neighborhoods and increase property
issues related to human safety, property damage and major
values. In “shrinking cities” with population losses, such as
public costs, especially in light of recent flooding in the
Midwest and Gulf Coast regions. Flood damage in the United
States averages over $6 billion annually, not including
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.9 These costs can be
mitigated through the use of watershed and neighborhood
scale green infrastructure planning to protect stream buffers 10
  Charlotte-Mecklenburg Floodplain Buyout Program: http://charmeck.org/
and natural lands adjacent to water bodies that are known stormwater/StormWaterProfessionals/Pages/FloodplainAcquisitionProgram.aspx;
Portland’s Johnson Creek Land Acquisition Partnership: http://www.portlandonline.
to flood during large storm events. Some localities, such com/Bes/index.cfm?a=214366&c=33212
as Charlotte-Mecklenburg County in North Carolina and 11
  Milwaukee’s Greenseams program: http://v3.mmsd.com/Greenseams.aspx
Portland, Oregon, have established land acquisition programs   Milwaukee’s Three Watershed Conservation Plan: http://www.epa.gov/nps/
12

natlstormwater03/26MOLeary.pdf

  San Jose’s Green Vision: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/goals/environment/

13

GreenVision/GreenVision.asp
9
  Association of State Floodplain Managers white paper on No Adverse Impact:
http://www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact/NAI_White_Paper.pdf 14
  Philadelphia’s Sustainability Initiatives: http://www.phila.gov/green/

10 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
Philadelphia15.and.Buffalo,16.vacant.properties.can.be.used. greenways.and.corridors.for.habitat.improvement.and.natural.
for.green.infrastructure.projects,.either.as.permanent.func- resource.protection.18.
tional.landscapes.or.interim.land.uses.to.encourage.economic.
development..Local.transportation.departments.can.use. The.addition.of.green.infrastructure.as.a.basic.community.
green.infrastructure.in.street.and.transportation.right-of-way. amenity.is.a.strong.driver.as.well..Several.of.the.case.studies.
improvements..Typical.practices.include.bump-outs,.streets. in.this.report,.including.Philadelphia,.Emeryville,.Lenexa.and.
trees.for.improving.pedestrian.environments,.sidewalk. Santa.Monica,.explicitly.list.quality.of.life.improvements.as.
planters.and.even.narrowing.street.widths.17.Parks.and.recre- a.major.priority.of.their.local.green.infrastructure.policies,.
ation.departments.can.also.get.involved.in.supporting.green. while.other.cities.see.them.as.ancillary.benefits..If.commu-
infrastructure,.especially.at.the.larger.scale,.by.connecting. nities.can.identify.and.ensure.designs.that.provide.multiple.
overlapping.benefits,.green.infrastructure.policies.can.be.a.
solution.to.the.increasing.challenges.facing.cities,.counties.
and.metropolitan.regions..
From Buffalo’s Right Sizing Program:
“Given.shrinking.populations,.Buffalo’s.
own.land.bank.will.likely.contain.a.specific.
element.addressing.‘green.infrastructure,’.
whereby.a.large.percentage.of.vacant.prop-
erties.will.be.transformed.into.open.space,.
trails,.community.gardens,.and.parks..A.
green.infrastructure.initiative.could.cre-
ate.value.in.the.habitable.properties.that.
remain,.and.attract.investors.and.residents.
back.to.these.neighborhoods.devastated..
by.decay.”

15
Green Plan Philadelphia: http://www.greenplanphiladelphia.com/
16
Buffalo’s Right Sizing, Green Infrastructure and Neighborhood Reinvestment
Plans (pages 14-15) 18
“How Cities Use Parks for Green Infrastructure,” By Dr. Mark A. Benedict
17
See Portland’s Green Streets Program Cross-Bureau Team Report for an example and Edward T. McMahon, American Planning Association City Parks Forum
on how to effectively identify agency overlaps: https://www.sustainableportland.org/ Briefing Paper, November 2003. http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/sites/
shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=153974 greeninfrastructure.net/files/greeninfrastructure.pdf

1—Common Drivers and Regulatory Framework

11
2 Menu of Local
Green Infrastructure Policies

This chapter contains descriptions of the major policy

approaches that are common to the majority of municipali-
ties in this case study, including examples of how the policies
have been applied. The next chapter contains guidance on
how the policies should be implemented and adapted to fit
local needs.

Stormwater Regulations
New stormwater regulations, whether for new projects or
redevelopments, are the single common denominator for all
12 case studies. Each municipality requires new and rede-
velopment projects to use green infrastructure, if possible, Figure 5: All developers in Emeryville, California, must comply
to manage stormwater runoff before leaving the site. EPA’s with the City’s “Stormwater Guidelines for Green, Dense
Redevelopment,” which requires green infrastructure, such as
NPDES permit requirements are often the primary driver for this stacked parking lot, throughout a project’s planning and
these local stormwater codes. However, specific local goals operation.
are reflected in the variable types of requirements for on-site
management. As seen in Table 3, many of the communities,
such as Olympia, Washington, and Lenexa, Kansas, require
developers to manage a specific volume of stormwater created
by impervious surfaces. At the same time, other municipali-
ties such as Alachua County, Florida, and Chicago, Illinois,
require minimization of site disturbances and overall reduc-
tion of impervious surfaces.

Although the case study communities show that innovation

in local stormwater codes can lead to better water quality
outcomes, stormwater regulations cannot address a commu-
nity’s water quality problems alone. Stormwater regulations Figure 6: Santa Monica, California’s stormwater code
generally only impact properties seeking new permits, which focuses on protection of beach resources and allows for
treatment and release of runoff.
does not account for most land use types or for properties

2—Menu of Local Green Infrastructure Policies

13
grandfathered in under older and less environmentally protec- 18,000
tive requirements (although some cities do choose to leverage Stormwater
Service Charges
16,000 Public Parcels
political will in favor of regulating existing properties). and Incentives
Vacant Lands
14,000
Philadelphia predicts that only 20 percent of its lands will be Stormwater Green Streets
Regulations
managed through land-based controls in the form of storm- 12,000

Total CSO Volume (MG/yr)

Alley Program

water management regulations, and that 20 percent is affected 10,000

only after the new regulations have been in place for 20 years 8,000

(see Figure 7). Vacant properties, public lands, streets and 6,000

waterfront areas will all need to be addressed through other 4,000 Waterfront Planning
and Development
policy approaches. 2,000
Special Service
Districts

0
Stormwater regulations alone cannot address larger land use Baseline 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

patterns and development practices. Stafford County, Virginia, Percent of Impervious Area served by Land Based Controls

has a stringent new stormwater code requiring infiltration and Figure 7: Philadelphia found that stormwater regulations alone would only
filtration practices but lacks larger land use planning poli- reach 20 percent of the impervious surfaces in the City. The City uses a
range of policy types, including public land projects and incentives.
cies to direct growth and encourage higher-density develop-
ments.19 A large percentage of county land is being converted
into parking lots and other impervious surfaces. Although To fully protect water resources, communities need to
95 percent of new commercial sites in Stafford County are employ a wide range of land use strategies, based on local
now managing stormwater on site through bioinfiltration, factors, including building a range of development densi-
the overall rate of land conversion to impervious surfaces is ties, incorporating adequate open space, preserving critical
very high. ecological and buffer areas and minimizing land disturbance.
Lenexa, Kansas, has a comprehensive plan for protecting and
creating large-scale green
infrastructure within the
City’s jurisdiction. The City
directs development away
from sensitive natural lands
and then purchases land in
priority areas to provide
flood mitigation, stream
protection, water quality
improvements and recre-
ational amenities.20 The map
in Figure 8 shows the many
functional green spaces that
also serve as public parks
and trails for recreation and
Figure 8: Watershed scale green infrastructure plan for Lenexa, Kansas. education. Municipalities
must also ensure that local land use policies support higher
densities, compact development and a mix of uses, which
are methods to better protect water quality—especially at the
watershed level. Consuming less land means creating less
impervious cover in the watershed.

  Stafford County’s stormwater management program: http://co.stafford.va.us/

19 20
Lenexa’s Rain to Recreation Program policies: http://www.raintorecreation.org/
Departments/Public_Works/Environmental/Index.shtml policies.html

14 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
Table 3: Local Stormwater Requirements

Municipality Type of Stormwater Requirement

Post-Development to Meet
Volume-based Performance Standard Process-based or Menu Approach
Pre-Development Conditions

Alachua County, FL X21

Philadelphia, PA X22

Portland, OR X23

Seattle, WA X X24 X

San Jose, CA X25

Santa Monica, CA X26

Stafford County, VA X27

Wilsonville, OR X28

Olympia, WA X29

Chicago, IL X30

Emeryville, CA X31

Lenexa, KS X32

  Alachua County, FL Stormwater Ordinance:

21

http://growth-management.alachua.fl.us/
27
Stafford County, VA: http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.
  Philadelphia Stormwater Regulation: http://www.phillyriverinfo.org/Programs/
22
asp?sid=46&pid=11500 (see Chapter 21.5-2)
SubprogramMain.aspx?Id=Regulations
28
Wilsonville, OR: http://www.ci.wilsonville.or.us/Index.aspx?page=91 (see Public
  Portland, OR: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=93075
23
Works Standard, Section 3) & http://ci.wilsonville.or.us/Index.aspx?page=662
& http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=35122
29
Olympia, WA: http://olympiawa.gov/city-utilities/storm-and-surface-water/
  Seattle, WA: http://www.seattle.gov/dclu/codes/dr/DR2009-17.pdf
24
policies-and-regulations.aspx
  San Jose, CA: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/stormwater/Policy_6-29_
25
30
Chicago, IL: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/
Memo_Revisions.pdf COC_EDITORIAL/StormwaterManagementOrdinance1206.pdf
  Santa Monica, CA: http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/
26
31
Emeryville, CA: http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=335
OSE/Categories/Urban_Runoff/UR_Worksheet.pdf & http://www.smgov.net/
uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/Urban_Runoff/UR_Brochure.pdf 32
Lenexa, KS: http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/LenexaCode/viewXRef.asp?Index=2927

2—Menu of Local Green Infrastructure Policies

15
Table 4: Local Stormwater Requirements

Municipality Stormwater Regulation

Portland, OR Mandatory hierarchy for on-site infiltration or other practices to the maximum extent practicable (MEP).

All projects > 2000SF new and replaced impervious surfaces are required to compost amend all disturbed
pervious areas, and implement green stormwater infrastructure practices to the maximum extent feasible
(MEF). For areas with >10,000 SF impervious flow control performance based thresholds must also be
Seattle, WA demonstrated; For majority of Seattle creeks drainage basins site must achieve predeveloped pasture condi-
tion for peak and duration up to the 2-year flood frequency; For CSO and capacity constrained systems
peak control target for 2 year and 25 year flood frequency events must be demonstrated. Additional require-
ments to protect wetlands to maintain hydroperiod.

Control 91 percent of runoff volume infiltrated through on-site controls for quality; post-development flow to
Olympia, WA
meet predevelopment rates for quantity.

0.75-inch reduction of urban runoff from all impermeable surfaces through infiltration or treatment
Santa Monica, CA
and release.

Control either 85 percent of 24-hour storm runoff event (using volume treatment control measures (TCMs))
San Jose, CA or 10 percent of the 50-year peak flow rate (using flow TCMs), but must use landscape-based treatment
and trees to MEP.

Site design and source control measures, maximize pervious surfaces, and treatment using landscap-
Emeryville, CA ing. Post-construction quality must meet pre-construction standards, to MEP. Reporting on the amount of
impervious surface created/replaced.

Manage 1.37 inches of water quality volume using LID treatment train approach; pay into system for quan-
Lenexa, KS
tity (used to fund regional projects). Natural channels preserved to MEP.

Chicago, IL Manage 0.5 inch runoff from all impervious surfaces or reduce imperviousness by 15 percent.

Limit the proportion of the area of stormwater facilities to total site area through reduction of impervious
surfaces via vertical construction and use of alternative parking surfaces (to MEP); Stormwater management
Alachua County, FL
facilities must use site contours and minimize disturbance to existing natural features (to MEF). Anti-degra-
dation requirements for water quality.

Four areas of focus and associated requirements: channel protection (control one year storm), flood protec-
tion (post-development conditions must be equal to pre-development), water quality (infiltrate/manage first
Philadelphia, PA
1 inch from all directly connected impervious surfaces), and site design requirements to reduce impervious-
ness. Redevelopments may be exempt from channel and flood protection.

Stafford County, VA LID practices must be used to MEP to meet quality and quantity requirements.

Provide on-site detention and water quality facilities; post-development runoff rates must not exceed pre-
Wilsonville, OR
development rates; Revising standards now based on pilot neighborhood project using green infrastructure.

16 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
Review and Revise Local Codes where.the.opportunities.and.barriers.may.exist.in.a.municipal-
ity’s.land.development.regulations,.building.codes,.permit-
Seven.of.the.municipalities.studied.conducted.a.thorough.
ting.processes.and.more..Local.regulations.that.should.be.
review.of.associated.development.codes.and.ordinances.to.
reviewed.may.be.controlled.and.enforced.by.a.number.of.
assess.consistency.with.a.new.or.revised.stormwater.regula-
different.local.government.agencies,.including.parks.and.
tion..These.cities.and.counties.are.finding.that.a.review.of.
recreation,.public.works,.planning,.environmental.protection,.
other.local.ordinances.is.necessary.to.remove.barriers.and.
utilities.and.transportation..
ensure.coordination.across.all.development.codes.for.better.
water.quality.outcomes..Local.policies,.such.as.landscaping.
Chicago’s.Department.of.Environment.initiated.a.Green.
and.parking.requirements.or.street.design.criteria,.should.
Urban.Design.process.to.look.at.discontinuity.of.ordinances.
complement.stormwater.standards.and.make.it.easier.for.
across.eight.city.agencies.and.then.developed.a.framework.
developers.to.simultaneously.meet.multiple.requirements..At.
plan.to.align.all.development.ordinances.34.One.point.of.
the.same.time,.if.other.local.policies.are.written.to.support.
discontinuity.was.with.a.landscape.ordinance.requiring.
water.quality.goals,.they.can.independently.reduce.and.better.
prescriptive.placement.of.vegetation.rather.than.prioritizing.
manage.stormwater.runoff..
practices.by.ecological.function,.which.contradicted.the.new.
performance-based.stormwater.requirements..
A.comprehensive.review.process.will.require.interagency.
coordination.and.cooperation.to.both.identify.and.address.
Philadelphia.has.established.a.Developer.Services.
the.potential.inconsistencies.between.different.policies.and.
Committee.to.streamline.its.development.review.process.35.
regulatory.mechanisms..EPA’s.Water.Quality.Scorecard.was.
This.partnership.effort.resulted.in.a.simplified.process.for.
developed.to.help.local.governments.identify.opportunities.to.
permit.review,.inspection.and.approval..The.success.of.the.
remove.barriers,.and.revise.and.create.codes,.ordinances.and.
new.stormwater.regulations.is.contingent.upon.the.fact.that.
incentives.for.improved.water.quality.protection..It.guides.
the.Philadelphia.Water.Department.requires.projects.to.get.
municipal.staff.through.a.review.of.relevant.local.codes.and.
ordinances,.across.multiple.municipal.departments.and.at.
the.three.scales.within.the.jurisdiction.of.a.local.government.
(municipality,.neighborhood.and.site),33.to.ensure.that.these. Philadelphia Developer Services
codes.work.together.to.protect.water.quality.goals..The.Water. Committee
Quality.Scorecard.can.be.found.at.http://www.epa.gov/ •. Fire.Department.
smartgrowth/water_scorecard.htm..
•. City.Planning.Commission.
A.process.of.review.and.coordination,.not.just.for.codes,.but. •. Philadelphia.Industrial.Development.
for.interaction.among.the.various.departments.involved.in. Corporation.
development.permitting,.should.be.done.early.if.not.before. •. Department.of.Licenses.&.Inspection.
the.new.stormwater.regulations.go.into.effect..The.building. •. Department.of.Public.Property.
and.development.community.may.be.more.willing.and.able.
to.implement.a.new.stormwater.requirement.if.the.process.
•. Managing.Director’s.Office.
for.understanding.and.installing.new.practices.is.transparent,. •. Streets.Department.
straightforward.and.in.concert.with.the.many.other.require- •. Water.Department.
ments.they.must.meet..
•. PECO.Energy.
A.thorough.policy.audit.can.help.municipal.staff,.stormwater. •. Philadelphia.Gas.Works.
managers,.planners.and.other.stakeholders.better.understand.

34
Chicago Codes for Green Urban Design: http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/
dam/city/depts/zlup/Sustainable_Development/Publications/Green_Urban_Design/
33
While the watershed scale is the best scale at which to look regionally at water GUD_booklet.pdf
quality protection strategies, it can be difficult to align policies, incentives and regu-
lations across political boundaries. So for purposes of implementation, the largest 35
Philadelphia Developer Services Committee: http://www.phila.gov/commerce/
scale the scorecard uses is the municipality. comm/lvl_2/mbat_dev.htm

2—Menu of Local Green Infrastructure Policies

17
concept approval for water, sewer and stormwater before Olympia, Washington, provides an example of a pilot phase
zoning permits are considered. that went poorly and resulted in a revised program. The City
set very strict development standards on the healthiest stream
Several cities have found that successful integration of green in the jurisdiction, Green Cove Basin, but because they
infrastructure systems into new development projects required did not entirely agree with or understand the requirements,
early site design considerations. Placing stormwater plan developers found loopholes in the regulation that resulted in
approval earlier in the development review process helps to poor neighborhood design and dissatisfaction on the part of
ensure better green infrastructure outcomes in built projects. homeowners. As a result, Olympia revised its requirements
and turned more attention towards street design and on public
Demonstration and Pilot Projects rights-of-way to improve runoff conditions in this salmon-
bearing watershed.38
Demonstration and pilot projects are a common way for
communities to introduce green infrastructure into a range of
programs and local agency policies. Small projects in loca-
tions with fewer physical and political complications provide
important testing grounds for the partnerships so often needed
for successful development of these programs. Furthermore,
pilot projects allow relevant agencies and staff to figure out
the logistics of implementing green infrastructure practices,
from design, construction and maintenance to basic permitting
protocols. A period of trial and error allows for the develop-
ment and refinement of a better policy or program.

Most cities pilot small-scale projects to work through poten-

tial problems with programs intended for citywide applica-
tion, such as a green streets initiative or standards for capital
projects. For instance, Seattle Public Utilities found that the
Figure 9: Villebois is a large neighborhood development in Wilsonville,
success of its Natural Drainage Systems program was due to Oregon, that incorporates decentralized stormwater management features.
several pilot projects that were carefully designed, installed
and then monitored for performance before being applied
Wilsonville, Oregon, conducted a similar large-scale pilot
throughout the City.36
project with the Villebois neighborhood, a 500-acre project
Although costs for green infrastructure projects initially may that is seen as a testing ground for a suite of new stormwater
be higher than traditional projects, often costs are lowered regulations and larger development requirements for this
after a pilot phase.37 In its first pilot year, Chicago’s Green fast-growing town (see Figure 9).39 City officials also intend
Alley Program cost 150-200 percent more than conventional to apply lessons learned in this private sector project to future
alley retrofits, but now costs have lowered to nearly match capital projects.
conventional material installation.
Whether demonstrations are meant to test new programs or to
serve as tangible evidence of the feasibility and functionality
of green infrastructure practices, they are almost always an

  Olympia development standards for Green Cove Basin: http://www.ci.olympia.

38

36
  For a list of Seattle Public Utilities Natural Drainage System projects: http://www. wa.us/en/city-utilities/storm-and-surface-water/streams-and-shorelines/streams-
seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/GreenStormwaterInfra- and-shorelines-green-cove-creek-watershed.aspx; More information on Green Cove
structure/NaturalDrainageProjects/index.htm as a priority watershed: http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/en/city-utilities/storm-and-
surface-water/streams-and-shorelines/streams-and-shorelines-green-cove-creek-
  For more information on pilot projects and costs, see Center for Neighbor-
37
watershed.aspx
hood Technology’s paper “Managing Urban Stormwater with Green Infrastructure:
Case Studies of Five U.S. Local Governments”: http://www.cnt.org/repository/   Villebois Village Master Plan: http://www.ci.wilsonville.or.us/Index.
39

GreenInfrastructureReportCivicFederation%2010-07.pdf aspx?page=112

18 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
important first step in a community’s effort to establish wide- capital projects, which is much simpler since one staff person
spread policies to support green infrastructure approaches. can review plans, conduct inspections and ensure that all
major projects include on-site stormwater mitigation features.
Capital and Transportation Projects
Taken in total, surface transportation systems, including road-
ways, railways, sidewalks and alleyways, can be the greatest
contributor to total imperviousness in a given community.40
Local departments of transportation dedicate an equally large
portion of funds to repairs, maintenance and improvements
to these systems. Eight of the 12 municipalities in this study
have realized the value of leveraging these huge funding
sources by incorporating green infrastructure practices into
standard transportation projects. Green street practices include
bioswales, rain gardens and infiltration practices, street trees
and porous paving materials, many of which add value to
the public space as well as providing better environmental
performance.41 Green streets handle stormwater with vege- Figure 10: Chicago’s Green Alley program retrofits existing alleys to
tated facilities, provide water quality benefits, create attractive include permeable pavers as seen in this residential alley. Photo courtesy
streetscapes, improve safety through traffic calming, provide of David Leopold.

pedestrian and bicycle access and serve as multi-purpose

Portland’s Green Streets program has a formal process to
urban greenways.
overlay multi-bureau project plans and scheduled capital
improvement projects to identify how public and private
Municipalities also spend considerable amounts of money
projects can achieve multiple community and environmental
planning and building major capital projects, from bridge-
benefits through green infrastructure.42 Chicago’s Green
building to road retrofits to development and redevelopment
Alley Program (see Figure 10) is an alternative solution
of public buildings, parks and other facilities. Several of
to the method of retrofitting over 3,500 acres of alleyways
the case study communities recognized that if even a small
throughout the City.43 Low traffic volume and the lack of
percentage of the total funding that goes towards these
existing infrastructure in Chicago’s alleys provided an oppor-
projects is allocated for green infrastructure designs, large
tunity to replace existing asphalt and concrete with pervious
impervious areas can be retrofitted in old projects and entirely
pavement to allow for infiltration instead of retrofitting with
avoided in new ones. For example, the City of Seattle estab-
conventional piped infrastructure.
lished the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative to evaluate how
it spends its more than $650 million annually on capital proj-
The increased investment necessary to include green infra-
ects. This interdepartmental initiative will consider sustain-
structure in these large undertakings is typically a very
able alternatives, such as green infrastructure, to typical
small percentage of the total project costs. Costs and ease
retrofits, repairs and new projects. Santa Monica, California,
of designing or redesigning streets depends on whether the
a smaller city, also incorporates green infrastructure into all
street is already built, what maintenance or improvements
are already planned and whether retrofits are being made to
streets, sidewalks or other types of infrastructure or utilities
40
  Clean Water Service’s Healthy Streams Plan, 2006 documents 54.5 percent of
imperviousness due to roads, parking lots and driveways: http://www.cleanwa-
terservices.org/Content/Documents/Healthy%20Streams%20Plan/Healthy%20
Streams%20Plan.pdf; United State Geological Survey report, “Quantifying the
Components of Impervious Surfaces,” shows that in the study watersheds, roads
and parking lots alone account for 52.9 percent of impervious surfaces; For more on 42
Portland’s Green Streets report, resolution and policy: http://www.portlandonline.
this topic, see Tom Schueler’s “The Importance of Imperviousness,” 1994: http:// com/BES/index.cfm?c=44407
yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/840a5de5d0a8d1418825650f00715a27/1
59859e0c556f1c988256b7f007525b9/$FILE/The%20Importance%20of%20
43
Chicago’s Green Alley program and handbook: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/
Imperviousness.pdf webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?topChannelName=HomePage&contentOID
=536946345&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted
  Find more resources on EPA’s Green Streets and Highways page: http://cfpub.
41
&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_
epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/technology.cfm#greenstreets Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do

2—Menu of Local Green Infrastructure Policies

19
 beneath.the.surface..The.use.of.green.infrastructure.elements.
can.also.decrease.overall.project.costs.44.For.example,.green.
10,000 Rain Gardens in metro- infrastructure.designs.can.be.used.to.reduce.the.concrete.and.
politan Kansas City is a successful asphalt.needed.to.pave.and.curb.streets..
education and outreach program
that engages citizens to manage Other.capital.projects.include.major.public.investments.to.
stormwater on site. acquire.lands.deemed.ecologically.sensitive.or.important.for.
water.quality.protection..Some.communities.purchase.prop-
“10,000.Rain.Gardens.is.not.a.government. erty.to.protect.it.from.new.development,.while.others.will.
program. construct.large.green.infrastructure.features.to.mitigate.floods.
and.manage.stormwater.flows.from.nearby.impervious.areas..
It.is.a.rallying.cry,.calling.upon.the.creativ- Lenexa,.Kansas’s.Rain.to.Recreation45.program.spends.tens.
ity.of.citizens,.corporations,.educators,.and. of.millions.of.public.dollars.to.purchase.land.in.priority.areas,.
which.prevents.unwanted.development.while.providing.long-
non-profit.organizations.to.join.with.gov- term.community.assets..Likewise,.Alachua.County.Forever46.
ernment.to.voluntarily.reduce.the.amount. is.a.program.in.Florida.where.the.County.acquires,.protects.
and.manages.environmentally.significant.lands.and.water.
of.stormwater.runoff.that.pollutes.our.
resources..These.programs.consider.large-scale.green.infra-
waterways..In.the.past.two.years,.several. structure.systems.that.work.to.improve.and.protect.overall.
hundred.rain.gardens.as.well.as.rain.barrels. watershed.function.and.minimize.imperviousness.throughout.
a.community..Capital.and.transportation.projects.can.have.
and.bioswales.have.been.installed.and.are.
significant.impacts.at.the.watershed.and.neighborhood.scales.
working.to.reduce.runoff.
Education and Outreach
These.personal.efforts.combined.with.
Education.and.outreach.programs.take.advantage.of.built.
commercial-sized.green.solutions.yield. green.infrastructure.projects.to.communicate.to.the.general.
a.powerful.cumulative.effect.in.reducing. public.the.value.of.stormwater.as.a.resource.rather.than.
remove.it.as.quickly.as.possible.from.the.site.or.city..Using.
flooding,.erosion.and.pollutants.in.our.
signage,.brochures.and.other.outreach.materials,.municipal.
rivers.and.streams..Working.together,.we. agencies.can.build.public.understanding.of.green.infrastruc-
will.improve.water.quality.and.make.a. ture.approaches..Education.and.outreach.takes.many.forms,.
such.as.Portland’s.stormwater.cycling.tour47.or.Chicago’s.
difference.now.and.for.the.future.”
how-to.guide.for.disconnecting.a.downspout.or.installing.
a.rain.barrel.48.Public.campaigns,.events.and.publications.
–10,000.Rain.Gardens.website:.http://
encourage.citizens.and.property.owners.to.take.action.to.
www.rainkc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/ reduce.runoff.and.prevent.contributions.to.stormwater.pollu-
home.showpage/pageID/9/index.htm tion..Olympia,.Washington’s.“Gardening.with.a.Sound.Mind”.

For.more.information,.go.to..
44
Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies
http://www.rainkc.com and Practices: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/
45
Lenexa, Kansas’s Rain to Recreation program: http://www.raintorecreation.org/
index.html
46
Alachua County’s Alachua County Forever program: http://www.alachuacounty.
us/Depts/EPD/LandConservation/Pages/LandConservation.aspx
47
Portland Stormwater Cycling Tour: http://www.portlandonline.com/Bes/index.
cfm?a=53568&c=34604
48
Chicago’s How-to Guide for Managing Stormwater at Home: http://egov.cityofchi-
cago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/ManagingStormwater_Home.pdf

20 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 groups, residents, businesses and other professionals.50
Not only is this type of public education good governance,
it helps institutionalize green infrastructure programs for
the long-term.

The simplest method of education and outreach is adding

signage to any known green infrastructure project, whether
on public or private land (see Figure 11). By giving visible
markers for these sites along with information about what
they are and how they work to protect water quality and
improve local environments, people begin to recognize the
larger system and cumulative impact of a decentralized
system of many practices.

Stormwater Fees
Stormwater fees are used to generate a dedicated revenue
stream to address the increasing investment most commu-
nities will have to make to control both combined sewer
overflows and stormwater runoff. Some municipalities need
additional funding for new infrastructure required to meet
the demands of growth and development or changing regula-
tory requirements, while older communities often need extra
revenue to repair and maintain existing storm sewer systems.
Traditionally, the costs for stormwater management were
paid for with general funds collected through taxes, such as a
property tax, or through a property’s water bill. Stormwater
user fees are now being used to direct the costs for stormwater
management towards those properties that actually create the
most runoff entering the public system.
Figure 11: Examples of educational signage added
to public and private property green infrastructure
approaches. Images from Philadelphia (top), Portland Unlike familiar water and wastewater utility fees, utility fees
(middle), and Chicago (bottom).
for stormwater management are a relatively new concept.
Their use arose from the recognition that managing storm-
urges homeowners to protect the Puget Sound by planting water imparts a fiscal impact on a municipality to manage
native species and avoiding lawn fertilizers and pesticides.49 infrastructure and provide environmental protection. An
Education programs can be directed toward individual increasingly common method for calculating a stormwater
behavior by highlighting how runoff carries pollutants to user fee is an impervious surface based billing system.
downstream surface waters. Because runoff from impervious areas is the primary contrib-
utor to the storm sewer system, this system is seen as a more
Other public outreach programs validate public investments equitable determination for fees than some early methods of
and capital projects, whether through educational signage calculating charges, such as a meter-based fee, which charges
or larger campaigns. Lenexa’s Rain to Recreation program by water consumption. For example, a parking lot may not
includes a free speaker’s bureau for schools, community use potable water on site but discharges significantly more

49
  Olympia’s “Gardening with a Sound Mind”: http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/en/
city-utilities/storm-and-surface-water/education-and-action/education-and-action- 50
Lenexa’s Rain to Recreation Speaker’s Bureau: http://www.raintorecreation.org/
gardening-with-a-sound-mind.aspx contact_us.html

2—Menu of Local Green Infrastructure Policies

21
runoff.than.a.residence.or.business.of.a.similar.size..The. the.amount.of.their.on-site.stormwater.fee..Discounts.often.
stormwater.fee.should.reflect.the.contribution.of.runoff.from.a. encourage.retrofits.of.existing.properties.and.implementation.
particular.site.. of.green.infrastructure.in.new.developments..In.Philadelphia,.
Portland.and.Seattle,.fee.discounts.and.credits.provide.an.
Many.communities.will.calculate.user.fees.for.commercial,. opportunity.for.property.owners.to.reduce.the.amount.they.
multi-family.residential.and.industrial.properties.based.on. pay.by.decreasing.impervious.surfaces.or.by.using.green.
total.lot.size.and.percentage.of.imperviousness.51.These.rates. infrastructure.techniques.that.reduce.the.amount.of.storm-
are.measured.through.a.Geographic.Information.System.(GIS). water.runoff..In.turn,.public.infrastructure.is.less.burdened.
and.orthographic.flyover.image.data.that.accurately.accounts. when.private.property.owners.manage.their.own.stormwater.
for.the.stormwater.runoff.inputs.of.these.large.customer. runoff.on.site..Discounts.also.support.the.fee-for-service.
parcels..For.ease.of.collection,.the.stormwater.fee.is.often. system.because.property.owners.can.reduce.the.amount.they.
added.to.water,.sewer.or.utility.bills..Some.cities.charge.the. pay.by.reducing.the.service.received.
user.fee.as.a.monthly.or.annual.tax..In.San.Jose,.California,.
for.instance,.the.Santa.Clara.County.Tax.Collector’s.Office. Before.setting.the.credit.standard.or.discount,.whether.for.use.
collects.the.Storm.Sewer.Service.Charge.through.the.annual. of.specific.green.infrastructure.practices.or.for.a.reduction.in.
property.tax.roll. impervious.surfaces,.municipalities.should.set.appropriate.
management.goals.and.determine.how.to.credit.private.prop-
Stormwater Fee Discounts erty.owners.for.whatever.action.is.being.given.an.incentive..
Table.5.outlines.a.framework.for.setting.goals.and.developing.
Stormwater.fee.discounts.and.incentives.give.property.
mechanisms.and.processes.for.implementing.fee.discounts..
owners.the.option.of.making.site.changes.that.can.decrease.

Table 5: Framework for Stormwater Fee Discount Programs

Goal of Discount Mechanism for Fee Reduction Process for Implementation

• Percent fee reduction • Percent reduction in imperviousness

Reduce Imperviousness
• Per-square-foot credit • Square feet of pervious surfaces

• Percent fee reduction

• List of practices with associated credits
On-site Management • Quantity/Quality credits
• Total area (square feet) managed
(performance-based)

• Percent reduction in imperviousness

• Performance-based
• Percent fee reduction
On-site Management • Total area (square feet) managed
• Performance-based quantity reduction
• Practices based on pre-assigned
performance values

• Percent fee reduction

Use of Specific Practices • List of practices with associated credits
• One time credit

51
For more information on stormwater fees, see EPA’s Municipal Handbook for
Green Infrastructure, Chapter on Funding Options: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
greeninfrastructure/munichandbook.cfm and EPA Region 3’s Fact Sheet on
Funding for Stormwater Programs: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/region3_fact-
sheet_funding.pdf

22 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 incentives.can.take.advantage.of.the.development.processes,.
such.as.permitting.or.other.development.codes.and.require-
ments,.to.creatively.encourage.green.infrastructure..The.four.
types.of.local.incentive.mechanisms.include.stormwater.fee.
discounts,.development.incentives,.rebates.and.installation.
financing.and.awards.and.recognition..

TYPES OF LOCAL INCENTIVES FOR

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
• Fee Discount:.Requires.a.stormwater.fee.
that.is.based.on.impervious.surface.area..
If.property.owners.can.reduce.need.for.
service.by.reducing.impervious.area,.the.
municipality.reduces.the.fee.
• Development Incentives:.Offered.to.
developers.during.the.process.of.applying.
for.development.permits..Includes.zoning.
upgrades,.expedited.permitting,.reduced.
Figure 12: Oregon Convention Center saves $15,600 per year on its
stormwater bill by managing roof runoff in these rain gardens.
stormwater.requirements,.etc..
• Rebates & Installation Financing:.Gives.
Municipalities.using.a.stormwater.fee.discount.commonly.set. funding,.tax.credits.or.reimbursements.to.
a.maximum.percentage.for.the.discount.to.ensure.adequate. property.owners.who.install.specific.prac-
revenue.generation..This.discount.is.primarily.given.for. tices..Often.focused.on.practices.needed.
stormwater.quantity.reductions.and.in.fewer.cases.for.pollu- in.certain.areas.or.neighborhoods.
tion.reduction.for.water.quality.purposes..Discounts.are.also. • Awards & Recognition Programs:.
offered.for.impervious.surface.reductions,.whether.for.total. Provides.marketing.opportunities.and.
area.or.by.the.square.foot..Finally,.credits.can.be.based.on.the. public.outreach.for.exemplary.projects..
implementation.of.specific.practices,.such.as.rain.gardens,. May.include.monetary.awards..
green.roofs.or.even.tree.canopy.area..Portland,.Oregon,.gives.
specific.credits.for.sites.with.ecoroofs.or.trees.over.15.feet.tall.
(see.Figure.12)..Credits.may.vary.based.on.the.type.of.green.
infrastructure.practice.and.the.goals.the.municipality.has.for. Development.incentives.apply.to.private.developers.that.take.
private.lands.. initiative.in.favor.of.more.sustainable.site.design.and.green.
building.practices..Incentives.tied.to.stormwater.regula-
Other Incentives tions.encourage.developers.to.creatively.implement.on-site.
management.practices.to.avoid.more.stringent.or.more.
Incentives.are.a.creative.tool.local.governments.can.use.to.
costly.stormwater.requirements..Chicago’s.Green.Permit.
encourage.green.infrastructure.practices.on.private.property..
Program.reviews.permits.much.faster.for.projects.that.meet.
Incentive.mechanisms.allow.municipalities.to.act.beyond.
certain.Leadership.in.Energy.and.Environmental.Design.
the.confines.of.regulatory.authority.to.improve.wet.weather.
management.on.properties.that.may.not.fall.under.updated.
stormwater.requirements..In.these.cases,.incentives.are.geared.
towards.private.property.owners.to.promote.retrofits.of.
existing.sites.to.include.green.infrastructure.practices.where.
they.do.not.already.exist..For.new.development.projects,.

2—Menu of Local Green Infrastructure Policies

23
(LEED) criteria.52 Portland’s Ecoroof Floor Area Ratio Bonus
increases a building’s allowable area in exchange for adding
an ecoroof.53 Portland has seen over $225 million in additional
private development through this program, and has added
more than 120 ecoroofs to the City.54 In San Jose, California,
87 percent of all development projects have reduced their
total site imperviousness to less than 10,000 square feet to
stay under the threshold at which new technology-based water
quality requirements go into effect.55

Rebates and installation financing programs give money

directly to individual homeowners, other property owners
and community groups for stormwater-related projects and
can help a city or county add green infrastructure projects to
the landscape. Examples of rebates and installation financing
include paying back property owners that purchase and
install rain barrels or trees or disconnect downspouts from
combined systems. Seattle’s Residential RainWise Program
gives residents rain garden and cistern incentives (see Figure
13).56 Santa Monica, California, gives $160,000 per year in Figure 13: A disconnected downspout in Seattle, Washington.
Landscape Grants to property owners that use native land-
scaping to reduce water consumption and absorb runoff.57
Overall, these incentive programs provide awards and savings
Chicago’s Green Roof Grants helped this former industrial
to developers and individuals who take extra steps to add
city add over 2.5 million square feet of green roofs across the
environmental benefits with greener stormwater management
City. The program grants $5,000 awards to residential and
practices. For a list of all known incentive programs from
small commercial buildings that meet criteria based on loca-
around the country, go to the Incentives Chapter within EPA’s
tion, visibility and environmental benefit.58
Green Infrastructure Municipal Handbook, at http://cfpub.
epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/munichandbook.cfm.

52
Chicago’s Green Permit Program: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/
COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/PermitFeeWaiversGreenPermitProgram_1.pdf
53
Portland’s Floor Area Ratio Bonus: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/
image.cfm?id=53363 (pages 510-32); or see http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/
index.cfm?c=ecbbd&a=bbehci
54
Portland BES presentation November 2007: http://www.portlandonline.com/Bes/
index.cfm?a=172761&c=46084 (slide 24)
55
87 percent figure based on 300 plans submitted per year with 35-40 reported
to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for passing the 10,000 square foot
threshold.
56
Seattle’s RainWise Program: https://rainwise.seattle.gov/systems/water
57
Santa Monica Sustainable Landscape Grant Program: http://www.smgov.net/
Departments/OSE/Categories/Landscape/grant_gardens/Sustainable_Landscape_
Grant_Program.aspx
58
Chicago’s Green Roof and Cool Roof Grants Program: http://www.cityofchicago.
org/city/en/depts/bldgs.html

24 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
3 Policy Implementation:
Barriers, Lessons Learned and Realities of Each Policy

Overview ●. Misunderstanding.about.land.use.issues

A.fully.developed.municipal.program.that.supports.green. ●. Cost.concerns59
infrastructure.at.every.scale,.including.the.watershed,.neigh-
borhood.and.site.levels,.is.not.created.all.at.once.or.through.a. These.items.are.barriers.in.the.sense.that.they.can.add.signifi-
single.policy.or.initiative..Many.of.the.municipalities.in.this. cant.time.and.effort.to.the.process.of.implementing.green.
study.found.that.incremental.policy.adoption.and.iterative. infrastructure.practices.on.the.ground.
processes.led.to.a.fuller.and.more.widespread.adoption.of.
green.infrastructure.approaches..Some.policies.are.easier.than. Clearing.up.misconceptions.about.green.infrastructure.may.
others.to.implement,.either.because.they.require.less.funding,. take.time.and.energy,.but.buy-in.from.key.stakeholders.is.
or.because.they.can.be.incorporated.into.existing.programs.or. important.for.successful.policy.implementation..Establishing.
undertaken.by.supportive.municipal.offices.or.agencies..Other. sustainable.funding.for.green.infrastructure.is.another.difficult.
policies.may.be.more.difficult.because.of.known.and.unex- step,.but.is.undoubtedly.the.cornerstone.of.long-term.and.
pected.barriers,.including:. sustainable.programs..Lack.of.political.support.is.another.
good.example.of.a.significant.barrier.that,.if.overcome,.can.
●. Funding help.a.program.flourish..However,.personnel.may.not.be.
able.to.easily.turn.the.tide.of.political.resistance,.and.might.
●. Lack.of.political.support/leadership
better.invest.time.and.energy.in.some.of.the.simpler.poli-
●. Resistance.to.change cies.that.can.jump-start.a.program.and.provide.support.for.
future.program.expansion..This.section.describes.three.steps.
●. Coordination.of.multiple.stakeholders.and.partners

●. Legislative.action

●. Conflicting.regulations
59
  Godwin, D.C., Chan, S.A., Burris, F.A. Barriers and Opportunities for Low Impact
Development: Case Studies from Three Oregon Communities. www.nacaa.com/
●. Need.for.technical.information.and.training journal/2008/Godwinpaper.pdf

An Economic Rationale for Integrated Stormwater Management: A Resource for

●. Nascent.market Urban and Rural Land Development in BC. Small Towns Initiative, Landscape
Architecture Program, University of British Columbia. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/
epdpa/mpp/stormwater/urban_rural_land/pdf/43.pdf

Oregon Environmental Council. Stormwater Solutions: Turning Oregon’s Rain Back

into a Resource, Chapter 4: Barriers to Overcome. http://www.oeconline.org/our-
work/rivers/stormwater.

3—Policy Implementation: Barriers, Lessons Learned and Realities of Each Policy

25
for.implementing.policies,.starting.with.those.that.can.more. time.it.may.take.to.properly.develop.an.equitable.fee.system,.
quickly.and.easily.result.in.build-out.of.green.infrastructure. complete.the.public.comment.period.and.fully.implement.a.
new.stormwater.fee.throughout.a.jurisdiction..However,.local.
This.three-step.approach.is.based.primarily.on.research. funding,.whether.from.stormwater.fees.or.other.sources,.is.
within.these.case.studies.and.is.meant.to.be.informative.for. a.critical.element.of.all.other.green.infrastructure.policies.
municipalities.trying.to.prioritize.time.and.resources.to.launch. and.programs.60.
green.infrastructure.programs..All.of.the.policies.listed.are.
important,.but.can.be.initiated.in.a.way.that.will.be.simpler,. Stormwater Regulation
cheaper.and.faster.for.getting.green.infrastructure.practices.in. All.of.the.municipalities.in.this.case.study.report.have.created.
the.ground.. a.new.or.improved.local.stormwater.ordinance.requiring.
the.use.of.green.infrastructure.practices.to.meet.quantita-
tive.management.standards..Revising.or.creating.a.local.
3-STEP POLICY IMPLEMENTATION stormwater.regulation.that.explicitly.encourages.or.mandates.
green.infrastructure.should.be.a.standard.step.in.the.process.
TO SUPPORT LOCAL GREEN
of.setting.up.a.comprehensive.green.infrastructure.program..
INFRASTRUCTURE
Table.4.in.the.previous.chapter.lists.each.case.study.and.its.
First Step specific.type.of.stormwater.regulation..Whether.the.storm-
water.regulation.is.performance-based.or.prescriptive.(by.
•. Stormwater.Regulation
requiring.the.use.of.particular.green.infrastructure.practices),.
•. Code.Review communities.must.write.stormwater.codes.with.definitive.
language.supporting.or.requiring.the.use.of.practices.that.
Second Step
infiltrate,.reuse.and/or.evapotranspire.runoff,.depending.on.
•. Demonstrations.and.Pilots local.rainfall.data,.soil.types.and.other.conditions..
•. Education.and.Outreach
•. Incentives Code Review
Local.code.review.must.be.an.early.step.in.the.process.of.
Third Step truly.integrating.green.infrastructure.into.all.municipal.
•. Capital.and.Transportation.Projects programs,.from.planning.to.public.works..Local.policies,.
•. Stormwater.Fee such.as.landscaping.and.parking.requirements.or.street.design.
criteria,.should.complement.strong.stormwater.standards.
•. Fee.Discount
and.make.it.easier.for.developers.to.simultaneously.meet.
multiple.requirements..

First Step Policies The.various.regulations,.processes.and.other.policies.that.

should.be.reviewed.may.be.under.the.control.of.a.number.
Every.community.that.is.committed.to.green.infrastructure.
of.different.local.government.agencies,.including.parks.and.
should.secure.a.sustainable.local.funding.source,.revise.local.
recreation,.public.works,.planning,.environmental.protection,.
stormwater.regulations.to.require.the.use.of.green.infrastruc-
utilities.and.transportation..This.review.process.will.require.
ture.practices.on.site.and.review.local.codes.and.ordinances.to.
interagency.coordination.and.cooperation.to.both.identify.
ensure.support.of.water.quality.goals.
and.address.the.potential.inconsistencies.between.different.
policies..A.comprehensive.interagency.review.may.be.more.
Securing.a.sustainable.source.of.funding.must.be.the.first.step.
of.an.undertaking.in.a.large.city.with.many.departments.
for.any.municipality.trying.to.set.up.a.comprehensive.storm-
with.large.staffs.that.do.not.regularly.communicate.or.think.
water.program..Municipalities.that.rely.entirely.on.outside.
funds.in.the.form.of.grants.and.loans.will.find.it.difficult.to.
develop.many.of.the.other.policies.and.programs..Establishing.
60
For more information on setting up funding for green infrastructure programs,
a.stormwater.fee.is.included.as.a.third.step.because.of.the. see EPA’s Municipal Handbook at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/
munichandbook.cfm

26 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
about stormwater management. For a smaller jurisdiction, Streets.helped.gain.acceptance.for.Natural.Drainage.
this process may be simpler because fewer departments are Systems.within.the.Seattle.Department.of.Transportation.
involved and internal processes may be easier to change. (SDOT)..Monitoring.since.2001.on.the.original.2nd.Avenue.
pilot.street.shows.a.99.percent.reduction.in.stormwater.
EPA has developed a Water Quality Scorecard that provides volumes.flowing.off.site.61.Now.SDOT.includes.swales.
guidance for communities about how to review all local with.any.new.sidewalk.and.otherwise.reviews.each.major.
codes and ordinances, at the municipal, neighborhood and roadway.project.on.a.case-by-case.basis.for.inclusion.of.
site scales, to ensure that they are mutually supportive of green.infrastructure..
water quality goals. This policy tool can help municipal staff,
stormwater managers, planners and other stakeholders better Chicago:.Chicago’s.Green.Alley.Program.
understand where the opportunities and barriers may exist in
a municipality’s land development regulations and other ordi-
3 began.as.a.pilot.program.in.which.the.Chicago.
Department.of.Transportation.(CDOT).allowed.
nances from building codes to tree preservation requirements. the.program.to.run.as.a.one.year.pilot.phase.to.retrofit.a.
The Water Quality Scorecard can be found at http://cfpub. small.number.of.alleys.with.permeable.materials..This.pilot.
epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/munichandbook.cfm. year.allowed.CDOT.to.develop.specifications.for.mixing.
and.installing.permeable.alley.surface.material,.which.has.
Second Step Policies in.effect.created.a.new.market.for.manufacturers.and.
installers..Now.the.Works.Progress.Administration.and.
Demonstration and pilot programs and education and
other.agencies.are.using.these.materials.and.processes.to.
outreach programs can set the stage and provide support
make.permeable.parking.lanes,.and.CDOT.now.retrofits.all.
for larger undertakings, such as instituting a stormwater
alleys.in.the.City.with.permeable.materials..
utility or incorporating green infrastructure in public project
design standards.
Education and Outreach Programs
Demonstration Projects Education.and.outreach.are.common.programs.in.many.of.
the.cases.because.they.are.relatively.easy.and.inexpensive.to.
Demonstration projects are the starting block for almost every
implement.while.building.necessary.public.understanding.and.
one of the communities in this case study. Built projects
support.for.other.green.infrastructure.policies..Municipalities.
provide legitimacy to green infrastructure practices that can
should.develop.education.programs.not.only.for.the.general.
be challenging to establish simply through research findings,
public,.but.also.for.residential.and.commercial.property.
models and examples from other locations. Program staff
owners.and.internal.municipal.staff.that.might.be.working.on.
can easily build internal partnerships to identify locations
green.infrastructure.projects..
appropriate for demonstration projects or opportunities to set
up pilot programs. Three examples of successful pilot and
Public outreach can include placing municipal-sponsored
demonstration programs include:
signs on any known green infrastructure projects, including
private properties. This brings visibility to the range of green
Philadelphia:.Philadelphia.prioritizes.
1 demonstration.projects.on.public.property.based.
on.priority.CSO.outfalls.and.their.drainage.areas..
infrastructure projects in a community and should provide
simple, straightforward information about how infiltration,
reuse and evapotranspiration work to manage runoff on site.
The.Water.Department.has.mapped.the.City.by.sewershed,.
Signage is especially valuable for manifesting the cumulative
which.has.supported.the.process.of.identifying.areas.in.
impact of various practices. If people recognize that a home
greatest.need.of.CSO.reductions..Demonstration.projects.
rain garden works in tandem with a neighboring business’s
are.monitored,.ideally.both.before.and.after.green.infra-
green roof, the larger decentralized effort to reduce and
structure.improvements,.to.measure.performance.and.
manage runoff on site becomes clear.
CSO.reductions..

Seattle:.Seattle.Public.Utilities.has.used.
2 demonstration.projects.to.achieve.exponential.
change..Seattle.Street.Edge.Alternatives.or.SEA.
  http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/GreenStorm-
61

waterInfrastructure/NaturalDrainageProjects/StreetEdgeAlternatives/index.htm

3—Policy Implementation: Barriers, Lessons Learned and Realities of Each Policy

27
More involved education and outreach programs include complicated design guides62 can lead to better understanding
trainings and workshops offered to important stakeholder by everyone from homeowners to municipal property
groups such as developers, contractors and municipal mainte- managers and contractors, which leads to better performance
nance staff and property managers. Classes and seminars that and hopefully greater adoption of green infrastructure prac-
educate the people designing, building and maintaining green tices. Furthermore, education programs create public and
infrastructure practices help to build local markets, dispel political support as people begin to recognize, discuss and
misconceptions about various practices and train contractors inquire about projects.
and staff about how green infrastructure systems function.
Incentives
Decisions to establish education programs are generally Incentive mechanisms can be easy to implement and afford
less controversial than most other policy options and can local decision makers the flexibility and creativity to tailor
be made at the staff or program level. The distribution of programs to specific priorities or to particular geographic
materials such as simple explanatory brochures or even more

Figure 14: Seattle’s Green Factor requires 30 percent parcel vegetation in business districts. Property owners can use various practices to reach the 30
percent threshold, with bonuses for rainwater harvesting, drought tolerant plants, tree preservation, green roofs and more. Image from the City of Seattle.

62
To see examples of education and outreach materials from these case studies
and more, go to www.epa.gov/greeninfrastructure.

28 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
areas in a community. Incentives are voluntary, which creates retrofit or create large land areas with green infrastructure,
less resistance from stakeholder groups and allows policy these projects may need to come as a lower priority for
makers to test or pilot programs that may one day develop municipalities hoping to see more immediate impacts.
into mandates or requirements. Seattle’s Green Factor is
limited to downtown business districts, both because of the Stormwater Fee
economic development potential of improved green space Municipalities that are serious about setting up effective green
there, and also because it allows the City a defined area to infrastructure programs must secure sustainable funding.
pilot this new program before applying it to other areas and Stormwater fees can be easier to establish than a local tax
zoning types in Seattle (see Figure 14).63 because a fee is a charge that municipalities have the authority
to leverage for the services they provide, if they have the
Incentives can be very effective when tied to regulatory appropriate enabling legislation. However, a new or revised
programs or to a stormwater fee. Offering property owners stormwater fee requires data collection and financing studies
a way to decrease regulatory impacts or stormwater fees can to ensure revenue generation and evaluate equity issues.
serve as effective motivation to decrease on-site impervi- These processes can take time and money, but are necessary
ousness or add specified green infrastructure practices for elements for developing fair and functional stormwater fees.
managing runoff. However, municipalities should lead by Furthermore, although stormwater fees do not require direct
example and incorporate green infrastructure design standards public approval, they do need political support.
into public works projects at the same time as introducing
incentives for the private sector. The District of Columbia recently embarked on an effort
to increase stormwater fees to meet its EPA MS4 permit
Third Step Policies requirements. Like some other municipalities, the District
Capital and Transportation Projects of Columbia previously charged for stormwater based on
potable water use and is planning to shift to an impervious
Municipal governments can create and preserve large areas
surface billing system that more accurately reflects the
of green infrastructure by integrating green infrastructure into
service of managing stormwater runoff created by a site’s
major capital projects and transportation projects. This may
impervious surfaces. The process has been neither quick nor
come in the form of design standards for capital and transpor-
easy. The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
tation projects, by purchasing sensitive natural areas, or by
is the entity that bills residents on the District Department of
changing ingrained processes for implementing major public
Environment’s behalf. This outside coordination has slowed
works projects. When local governments lead by example,
the process, along with concerns about collecting adequate
they send a clear message that the municipality is dedicated
revenues, how to fairly and accurately calculate the charge,
to a new form of stormwater management and a new way of
how to provide discount programs for low-income resi-
approaching development. Furthermore, public projects allow
dents and even how to represent the charge on bills. Despite
internal city or county staff a chance to learn about green
political and stakeholder support for the new fee system, the
infrastructure, including construction and installation, how to
District is still waiting to fully implement its new stormwater
review plans and alter designs and how to operate and main-
fee. The District of Columbia provides just one example that
tain the variety of practices that infiltrate, reuse and evapo-
the process can be complicated and cumbersome, but impor-
transpire stormwater. Including green infrastructure in capital
tant for cities that want to increase revenues and more accu-
and transportation projects is very important for creating a
rately and equitably charge property owners for stormwater
long-term green infrastructure program.
management costs.
However, changing well-established bureaucratic processes,
Fee Discount
both for political decision making and for implementation
Stormwater fee discounts are intricately tied to the storm-
of public works plans, can be both slow and difficult. While
water fee and often share the same delays and complications.
incorporating green infrastructure into these projects can
Municipalities want high participation rates in any discount
program in order to see green infrastructure retrofits, but
there are simultaneous concerns about meeting revenue goals.
63
  Seattle Green Factor: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Permits/GreenFactor/Overview/

3—Policy Implementation: Barriers, Lessons Learned and Realities of Each Policy

29
Extensive revenue generation studies can prove difficult to
undertake without hiring consultants. Also, significant stake-
holder engagement is necessary to the success of an incen-
tive program that will likely impact large-scale development
projects and existing commercial and industrial properties.

Portland, Oregon, provides insight into setting up a discount

program that takes these concerns into account. The City
anticipated the highest level of participation in the first year of
its discount program and increased stormwater rates by nearly
20 percent in the first year to make sure they met revenue
goals. Although participation rates were only one-third of
what the City estimated, they maintained revenue increases
and invested excess funds in capital improvements and water-
shed restoration projects. City staff said in retrospect they
would have piloted the discount program in targeted parts
of the City to see how it was received by property owners to
better estimate participation. A pilot program also would have
allowed the City to more easily fix flaws in the program that
were much harder to address with a larger citywide program.

Before setting fee discounts, municipalities should first deter-

mine the stormwater management goals they wish to achieve
(e.g., reduce impervious cover, increase infiltration, increase
green roofs). Once these management goals are defined, offi-
cials must then decide how to credit private property owners
for the action(s). Some cities give a percent discount for level
of performance, primarily for stormwater quantity reduc-
tion and in fewer cases for pollution reduction. Discounts are
also offered for impervious surface reductions, whether for
total area or by the square foot. Finally, credits can be based
on particular practices, such as rain gardens, green roofs or
even tree canopy. This overall process should be thoughtfully
developed with input from ratepayers and should build in
opportunities for responsive change based on feedback.

30 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
4 Conclusion
Integrating Policies Setting Priorities
The.municipalities.in.this.study.illustrate.the.success.of. Whether a community’s water-related concerns are primarily
setting.up.an.integrated.program.that.weaves.together. with improving water quality, reducing water quantity,
multiple.goals.and.engages.various.local.agencies..Instead. restoring natural hydrology, or all of the above, local policy
of.limiting.the.scope.of.stormwater.efforts.to.the.regulatory. makers need to define local goals and then create policies or
framework.outlined.in.the.Clean.Water.Act,.the.most.innova- programs aimed at these priorities.
tive.municipalities—those.with.extensive.build-out.of.green.
infrastructure—use.a.range.of.regulatory.and.non-regulatory. Municipalities should also strategize about how to gain
mechanisms..Local.leadership.has.helped.create.programs.that. benefits where they are most needed and target programs
move.beyond.stormwater.regulations.and.take.advantage.of. for specific properties and land use types or geographically
policies.and.programs.that.protect.large.scale.green.infrastruc- defined areas. For example, some communities will prioritize
ture,.retrofit.existing.impervious.sites.and.establish.new.areas. combined sewer areas or neighborhoods with the highest
to.include.green.infrastructure.practices.. percentage of impervious surfaces. Other municipalities may
direct policies at specific land uses, like parking lots or vacant
While.land.use.regulations.can.address.many.properties. properties that combine to form a large block of impervious
and.land.use.types,.other.approaches.such.as.demonstration. surface types. Others still may put an emphasis on adding
projects,.incentives,.grants.and.outreach.programs.increase. surface vegetation to neighborhoods with less access to
the.amount.of.green.infrastructure.through.retrofits,.stream. public green space. Local priorities, needs and availability of
restoration,.watershed.projects.and.changing.public.percep- resources should determine the mix of policies most appro-
tion.of.stormwater.and.the.infrastructure.needed.to.minimize. priate to achieve these goals.
and.manage.it..These.cities.and.counties.did.not.always.create.
a.clear.plan.that.led.to.all.intended.results;.many.have.devel- Innovative communities in this study, and those beyond
oped.programs.over.time,.filling.out.gaps.with.new.policies. the ones listed here, are setting green infrastructure priori-
and.refining.existing.policies.as.they.go.along..It.was.also. ties based on achieving multiple objectives and choosing
critical.that.these.communities.had.the.initiative.to.take.some. approaches that will drive progress in various sectors. For
first.steps.and.continue.to.learn.as.they.went.along.. example, cities should consider the non-water benefits of
green infrastructure for energy conservation, greenhouse gas
emission reductions, public health, community livability,
resource recovery (phosphorus and biosolids), reduced
infrastructure construction, operation and maintenance costs

4—Conclusion
31
and more. Some communities, metropolitan areas and even Long-Term Planning and Investment
multi-state regions are starting to link together the site-level
Communities.that.take.the.long-term.view.invest.in.hybrid.
and municipal performance of green infrastructure systems to
green.and.gray.systems.that.provide.more.community.and.
larger regional performance and benefits. For example, Open
environmental.benefits.while.maintaining.existing.invest-
Space Seattle 2100 is a project that integrates urban plan-
ments. A systematic approach, often initiated by mapping
ning with watershed planning, uses existing data to calculate
existing needs and assets, will help to define long-term goals
long-term future scenarios and outlines a range of benefits
and timelines for achieving them. Moving beyond short-term
from connected green infrastructure systems (see Figure 16).64
projects is especially important for investing in vegetated
Similarly, Philadelphia’s Triple Bottom Line study assesses
systems that require time to grow and show performance for
green infrastructure options for CSO control over 40 years
managing stormwater runoff. At the larger neighborhood and
and determines citywide, total present value benefits to range
watershed scale, building out different parts of a community
from about $1.9 billion (2009 USD) under the 25 percent
with green infrastructure will require time to show cumu-
green infrastructure option to more than $4.5 billion under
lative benefits as these areas link together and work as a
the 100 percent green infrastructure option (see Figure 15).
whole system.
Ongoing work and future development may help establish
metrics and methodologies for determining the benefits of
Municipalities should approach the development of a green
integrated approaches to resource management and commu-
infrastructure program as an iterative process with many
nity design and planning.
incremental steps. There are a number of policy options
available with a range of
necessary inputs, including
funding, staffing, time, public
< 1%
participation and support
2% Increased recreational opportunities
from politicians, stakeholder
1%
Improved aesthetics/property value
groups and even upstream or
5%
4% 18% Reduction in heat stress mortality downstream jurisdictions. In
light of the many potential
Water quality/aquatic habitat enhancement
barriers, municipalities should
12% Wetland services seek to build programs that
Social costs avoided by green collar jobs are flexible and multifaceted.
Flexible programs will be able
Air quality improvements from trees
20% to respond to changing political
Energy Savings climates, public perceptions
Reduced damage from SO2 and NOX emissions and new information about
the performance and design of
Reduced damage from CO2 emissions green infrastructure systems.
37%
By using a diverse set of poli-
cies across all three scales,
from the watershed to the
Figure 15: Citywide net benefits for green infrastructure options. Courtesy of Philadelphia Water Department. neighborhood and site, commu-
http://www.phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu/Vol02_TBL.pdf
nities can fully integrate green
infrastructure into the fabric of
the built environment.

64
Open Space Seattle 2100: Designing Seattle’s Green Network for the next
century: http://open2100.org

32 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
Figure 16: Open Space Seattle 2100 bases urban planning on watershed units and integrates transportation,
water infrastructure, habitat areas and community amenities. Map courtesy of http://open2100.org

4—Conclusion
33
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Alachua County, Florida CASE STUDY

Overview including.flooding,.stream.channel.erosion,.and.poor.water.
quality..Because.the.County’s.surface.waters.are.hydrologi-
Home.to.the.City.of.Gainesville.and.the.University.of.Florida,.
cally.connected.to.its.groundwater.supply,.degraded.surface.
Alachua.County.is.located.in.the.flat.Central.Highlands.
waters.could.also.affect.the.County’s.drinking.water..As.the.
region.of.north-central.Florida..Water.is.a.remarkably.visible.
County’s.population.and.development.continues.to.increase,.
and.important.resource.for.Alachua.County..Ample.rainfall.
county.managers.recognize.the.need.to.protect.the.land.and.
throughout.the.year.provides.water.to.more.than.20.creeks.
water.resources.for.future.generations..
and.streams.that.flow.into.sinkholes,.lakes,.marshes.and.the.
Santa.Fe.River..These.waterbodies.serve.as.habitat.to.diverse.
biota,.provide.a.variety.of.recreational.opportunities,.and.
stimulate.economic.activity.by.drawing.tourists.and.residents.
alike..Some.of.this.surface.water.also.recharges.the.Floridan.
aquifer,.a.vast.groundwater.reservoir.that.supplies.90.percent.
of.Florida’s.drinking.water.and.all.of.Alachua.County’s.
drinking.water..

Alachua.County.is.largely.rural.outside.of.Gainesville.and.
the.University.of.Florida,.and.population.growth.is.placing.
increasing.pressure.on.the.County’s.land.and.water.resources..
To.preserve.these.fragile.natural.resources,.Alachua.has.
developed.a.set.of.regulatory,.land.acquisition,.and.informa-
tion.strategies.promoting.green.infrastructure..Alachua.takes.
a.systems.approach.to.green.infrastructure,.recognizing.the.
interconnections.between.land,.water,.habitat.and.quality.of. Figure 1: Madera is a neighborhood development on 40 acres that
achieves decentralized stormwater management and protects mature
life..The.County.has.drawn.broad.support.for.green.infra- trees. The developer, Green Trust LLC, saved $40,000 on stormwater by
structure.activities.by.identifying.the.multiple.benefits.beyond. using existing forested basins instead of building new retention ponds.
stormwater.management..The.County’s.governance.structure.
promotes.collaboration,.performance.management,.and.public. Regulatory Strategies
involvement..This.open.and.responsive.structure.allows.
Adopted.in.2005.and.2006,.Alachua’s.Comprehensive.Plan.
the.program.to.adapt.to.residents’.priorities.and.promotes.
and.Land.Development.Code.include.a.comprehensive.set.of.
continued.support.
regulations.promoting.green.infrastructure.at.multiple.scales..
A.series.of.development.requirements.promote.green.infra-
Drivers structure.at.the.site.and.neighborhood.scales..While.devel-
Alachua’s.green.infrastructure.program.was.developed.largely. opments.of.25.units.or.more.are.required.to.cluster.units.to.
in.response.to.development.pressures.associated.with.its. preserve.at.least.50.percent.of.open.space,.all.developments.
growing.population..Existing.development.has.generated. are.required.to.preserve.significant.natural.areas.and.trees..
a.host.of.impacts.to.surface.waters,.habitat,.and.recreation,. Developers.must.maintain.75.foot.buffers.along.streams,.50.

Case Study—Alachua County, FL

35
percent of “strategic ecosystems” as identified by the County, Implementation
and 20 percent of existing tree canopy. To reduce impervious
Alachua’s development records, built environment, and
cover, the Land Development Code reduces the minimum
open space network attest to the success of its policies. From
pavement width standard to 18-22 feet for residential roads,
April 2006 to September 2009, developments reviewed and
and allows shared parking and pervious materials for spill-
approved by the County protected 31 percent of open space,
overs or parking lanes.
67 percent of the tree canopy, 27 percent of upland habitat, 59
percent of strategic ecosystems, and 100 percent of wetlands.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code also
include a set of regulations requiring a comprehensive storm-
Alachua’s Madera subdivision (see Figure 1) provides an
water management program. To improve the performance of
illustrative example of the site- and neighborhood-scale green
the County’s stormwater management system, the County
infrastructure practices the County’s development regula-
is required to maintain an inventory of stormwater manage-
tions can promote. In designing site plans to preserve existing
ment practices, track maintenance requirements, and schedule
vegetation, the developer not only retained mature trees, but
maintenance activities in the Capital Improvements Program.
reduced soil compaction. Infiltration was further promoted by
The Plan and Code also address funding and administration.
native landscaping, narrower streets, and depressed bioreten-
The County is required to pursue a dedicated revenue source
tion areas in each cul-de-sac.
for its stormwater management program, and the Public
Works Department is charged with administering the program.
On a regional scale, Alachua’s land acquisition program has
protected an impressive network of open space in the 10 years
Land Acquisition Strategies since its conception. Alachua County Forever has protected
Alachua’s land acquisition strategies complement its regula- over 18,000 acres of land worth over $81 million. Today,
tory strategies by expanding the County’s regional-scale green Alachua has nature preserves in every quadrant of the County,
infrastructure. Alachua’s land acquisition strategies enjoy 90 percent of which are open to the public. These include
broad support from citizens and landowners. In November large, connected properties as well as urban green space.
2000, voters overwhelmingly approved the use of $29 million
collected through a property tax to create a dedicated fund for Alachua County offers an instructive example for other rural
land acquisition. The fund, called Alachua County Forever, counties experiencing steady urbanization. By taking action
uses voluntary acquisition tools including sales, donations and early to preserve its land and water resources, Alachua has
dedications of interests in land to conserve open spaces nomi- assured continued access to open space, clean water, and
nated by the public. Voters reaffirmed their commitment to diverse ecosystems for generations to come.
land conservation in 2008 with the passage of the Wild Spaces
Public Places referendum. This referendum established a one-
half cent sales tax for two years to fund land conservation and
recreational improvements.

Information Strategies
Alachua’s information strategies include indicators tracking,
information sharing, education and outreach, civic engage-
ment, and intergovernmental coordination. By tracking and
sharing the success of its regulatory and land acquisition
strategies, Alachua promotes confidence in its programs,
increases citizen engagement, and assures long-term support
of its resource protection efforts.
Figure 2: Depot Pond is a former brownfield site that was cleared of
contaminated soil and converted into a functional wetland for managing
runoff from nearby downtown.

36 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Chicago, Illinois CASE STUDY

Overview the.high.density.of.impervious.cover.in.urban.areas,.which.
tend.to.absorb.more.heat.in.the.day.and.radiate.more.heat.
A.vibrant.city.on.the.shores.of.Lake.Michigan,.Chicago.is.one.
at.night..With.58.percent.of.its.urban.area.occupied.by.
of.the.nation’s.innovators.in.green.infrastructure..Chicago’s.
impervious.cover,.Chicago.experiences.a.particularly.severe.
3.million.residents.are.served.by.a.vast.system.of.water.and.
urban.heat.island.effect..Green.roofs.and.the.urban.tree.
wastewater.infrastructure.that.includes.more.than.100.square.
canopy.are.known.to.significantly.reduce.temperatures.in.
miles.of.impervious.cover,.thousands.of.miles.of.water.and.
urban.environments.
sewer.pipes,.a.28-mile.canal.that.reverses.the.course.of.the.
Chicago.River,.and.nearly.100.miles.of.stormwater.storage.
The.final.driver.of.green.infrastructure.in.Chicago.is.the.
tunnels..Chicago.leaders.and.residents.are.creating.an.inte-
City’s.efforts.to.advance.its.triple-bottom-line..Chicago’s.
grated.system.of.gray.and.green.infrastructure.to.better.serve.
mayor.and.other.city.leaders.have.consistently.maintained.
their.environmental,.social.and.economic.objectives..In.addi-
that.a.healthy.environment.is.both.consistent.with.and.
tion,.Chicago’s.green.infrastructure.program.is.one.element.
critical.to.a.robust.economy.and.a.richer.quality.of.life..In.
of.a.comprehensive.environmental.agenda.addressing.green.
the.comprehensive.Water Agenda.released.in.2003,.and.
building,.transportation,.energy.and.resource.management..
Environmental Action Agendas.released.in.2005.and.2006,.
Chicago’s.leaders.have.reaffirmed.their.belief.that.environ-
Drivers: Aging Infrastructure, Urban Heat mental.initiatives.can.help.the.City.stretch.taxpayer.funds,.
Islands, and the Triple Bottom Line help.residents.save.money.on.energy.costs,.make.the.City.a.
Like.many.cities.that.installed.sewage.collection.systems. great.place.to.live,.and.contribute.to.increased.property.values.
before.the.1930s,.Chicago.has.a.single.piping.system.to.trans- for.Chicago.homeowners..
port.both.sewage.and.stormwater.runoff..When.large.storms.
overwhelm.the.capacity.of.Chicago’s.wastewater.treatment. Stormwater Management Ordinance
plants,.untreated.waste.and.stormwater.is.discharged.into.the. The.Chicago.policy.that.most.directly.promotes.green.infra-
Chicago.River,.degrading.water.quality.in.the.Des.Plaines. structure.is.the.recently.adopted.Stormwater.Management.
River.and.Lake.Michigan..Though.Chicago.has.invested. Ordinance..As.of.January.1,.2008,.any.new.development.or.
billions.of.dollars.in.a.“deep.tunnel”.system.to.expand. redevelopment.that.disturbs.15,000.square.feet.or.more.or.
capacity.during.flood.events,.the.City.is.supplementing. creates.a.parking.lot.of.7,500.square.feet.or.more.must.detain.
this.gray.infrastructure.approach.with.green.infrastructure.. at.least.the.first.half.inch.of.rain.on.site..Alternatively,.the.
Completion.of.the.deep.tunnels.is.not.anticipated.until.2019,. development.may.reduce.the.prior.imperviousness.of.the.site.
and.climate.change.may.overwhelm.its.capacity..To.create.a. by.15.percent..
more.robust.system,.Chicago.is.promoting.landscape-based,.
green.infrastructure.approaches.that.infiltrate,.evapotranspire.
Green Streets Program
or.harvest.rainwater.before.it.enters.the.sewer.system..
In.1989,.Mayor.Richard.Daley.announced.a.Green.Streets.
Green.infrastructure.is.also.viewed.as.a.cost-effective. initiative.to.expand.the.city’s.tree.canopy..By.increasing.
approach.to.the.extreme.summer.heat.exacerbated.by.the. public.and.private.tree.plantings.and.improving.mainte-
urban.heat.island.effect..Urban.heat.islands.are.caused.by. nance.and.public.education,.Mayor.Daley.hoped.to.increase.

Case Study—Chicago, IL
37
the urban canopy by half a million trees by 1992. Though
progress was slower than hoped, by 2006, more than 583,000
trees had been planted, raising the proportion of the City
shaded by trees to 14.6 percent. These trees not only had the
intended effect of improving quality of life and air quality,
but also reduced runoff volumes through interception
and evapotranspiration.

Green Roof Program

Chicago offers incentives for building green roofs
through its Green Roof Grant Program and Green Roof
Improvement Fund. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, the Green
Roof Grant Program awarded grants of $5,000 to 72 green
roof projects on residential or small commercial build-
ings. In 2007, the Chicago City Council allocated $500,000 Figure 1: Chicago’s Green Alley Program retrofits existing alleyways to
include permeable pavers like these to infiltrate stormwater runoff. Photo
to the Green Roof Improvement Fund, and authorized the courtesy of David Leopold.
Department of Planning and Development to award grants of
up to $100,000 to green roof projects within the City’s Central
Loop District. Though neither grant program is active in the Sustainable Streetscapes Program
present economic environment, the City hopes to resume Through.the.Sustainable.Streetscapes.Program,.CDOT.
these programs once the City’s budget recovers. integrates.green.stormwater.infrastructure.into.street.improve-
ment.projects.throughout.the.City.and.tests.novel.storm-
Green Alley Program water.management.techniques..Notable.projects.include.the.
The City of Chicago has an estimated 1,900 miles of public realignment.and.grade.separation.project.at.130th.Street.and.
alleys paved with 3,500 acres of impervious cover. The Green Torrence.Avenue,.the.realignment.of.U.S..Route.41.through.
Alley Program began in 2006 as a series of pilot projects the.USX.Southworks.site,.and.the.pilot.project.planned.for.
conducted by the Chicago Department of Transportation Cermak.Road..The.130th.Street.and.Torrence.Avenue.project.
(CDOT) to test a variety of permeable paving materials to near.the.Calumet.River.will.redirect.the.roadway.runoff.to.
reduce flooding in alleys and increase infiltration of runoff. discharge.into.a.new.treatment.pond.and.vegetated.swale.
By the end of 2009, the program became permanent, and rather.than.directly.into.the.river..Similarly,.the.realignment.of.
CDOT had installed more than 100 green alley designs U.S..Route.41.will.include.permeable.pavement,.infiltration.
throughout the City. To share its experience with sustainable pipes,.and.other.treatment.structures.to.reduce.the.volume.
infrastructure practices, the City published the Green Alley and.pollutant.loads.of.runoff.into.Lake.Michigan.and.the.
Handbook,1 which describes best management practices combined.sewer.system..Other.sustainable.streetscape.proj-
implemented by the program and presents examples from ects.completed.by.CDOT.have.included.permeable.pavers,.
pilot projects. rain.gardens,.a.permeable.plaza,.and.permeable.asphalt.
parking.lanes.

1
  Chicago’s Green Alley Handbook: http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/
cdot/provdrs/alley/svcs/green_alleys.html

38 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Less visible, but perhaps more impressive, are the changes
in the way the City and the development community do
business. As the City constructs pilot projects to demon-
strate green infrastructure practices, developers and associ-
ated design, construction and manufacturing industries are
becoming more familiar with green infrastructure materials
and practices. This familiarity together with the City’s various
financial incentives has increased the cost-competitiveness of
some green infrastructure practices and expanded their adop-
tion among the development community. By integrating green
infrastructure into a broader environmental agenda, leading by
example, and pursuing an incentive-based approach, Chicago
is gradually moving towards more sustainable development
Figure 2: This Chicago building features a green roof, permeable
pavers and bioswales, which meet Chicago’s stormwater management and a more robust triple-bottom-line.
requirements.

Green Permit Program

Established.in.2005,.the.Department.of.Buildings’.Green.
Permit.Program.offers.owners.and.developers.an.innovative.
incentive.to.build.green..Qualifying.projects.may.benefit.
from.an.expedited.permitting.process.and.lower.permit-
ting.fees..Projects.qualifying.for.Tier.I.benefits.will.receive.
permits.in.less.than.30.business.days..Since.earlier.construc-
tion.starts.generally.lead.to.earlier.sales.and.reduced.interest.
on.construction.loans,.this.time.savings.can.translate.into.
significant.financial.savings..Projects.qualifying.for.the.
more.demanding.Tier.II.benefits.may.also.receive.a.direct.
financial.benefit.in.the.form.of.reduced.permitting.fees.of.up.
to.$25,000..

Implementation
Chicago’s.comprehensive.green.infrastructure.program.results.
in.highly.visible.changes.in.the.City’s.landscape..As.of.2010,.
nearly.600,000.trees.had.been.added.to.the.City’s.tree.canopy,.
and.more.than.4.million.square.feet.of.green.roofs.had.been.
installed.on.300.buildings..Pilot.projects.throughout.the.City.
are.also.demonstrating.how.green.infrastructure.practices.can.
be.integrated.into.alleys,.streets.and.buildings..These.projects.
not.only.reduce.runoff,.but.reduce.the.urban.heat.island.effect,.
improve.air.quality,.and.enhance.the.pedestrian.environment..
Data.collected.from.City.Hall’s.green.roof.indicate.that.the.
roof.not.only.reduces.stormwater.runoff.by.50.percent,.but.
significantly.reduces.energy.use.and.saves.the.City.approxi-
mately.$5,500.annually.on.heating.and.cooling.expenses..

Case Study—Chicago, IL
39
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Emeryville, California CASE STUDY

Overview
As Emeryville, California, transitions from a declining indus-
trial city to a vibrant, mixed-use urban center, city managers
are promoting environmental and economic sustainability
through an innovative set of green infrastructure poli-
cies. Emeryville is a former industrial hub located between
Oakland and Berkeley on the San Francisco Bay. Industry
left the City in the 1960s, and Emeryville struggled with its
legacy of contaminated properties until the 1990s, when an
aggressive brownfields redevelopment program was initi-
ated. The brownfields program met with great success and
attracted thousands of new residents to the 1.2 square mile
City, but initial efforts neglected the environmental and social
impacts of redevelopment. Emphasizing the “capping” of Figure 1: High-density housing with green infrastructure features is neces-
contaminated soils with parking lots and pavement, initial sary in Emeryville to take advantage of the mere 1.2 square miles of
developable land in this city.
redevelopment efforts created a largely impervious landscape
that impaired water quality, pedestrian access, and quality of
life. In 2004, Emeryville received a smart growth grant from Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit issued to
EPA to develop sustainable solutions to brownfield redevelop- Emeryville by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality
ment, and produced a comprehensive set of stormwater poli- Control Board required all projects creating 10,000 square
cies and guidelines adapted to Emeryville’s unique context. feet or more of impervious cover to include post-construction
Recognizing both the multiple benefits of green infrastructure stormwater controls on site. Given the limited supply of
and the limited supply of developable land, these policies developable land in Emeryville and the associated lack of
promote the integration of site-scale green infrastructure prac- green and pedestrian friendly spaces, city managers chose
tices throughout the built environment. Emeryville’s experi- to address these requirements by expanding the City’s green
ence with green infrastructure illustrates the versatility of the infrastructure network.
green infrastructure approach, and offers valuable lessons
to other cities interested in redevelopment that is both dense Policies
and green.
Emeryville requires new developments to manage stormwater
with green infrastructure and provides detailed design guide-
Drivers: Regulation and Limited lines tailored to the City’s unique context. In 2007, Emeryville
Developable Land introduced a comprehensive set of green infrastructure provi-
Emeryville’s approach to stormwater management was sions into its Municipal Code. These provisions promote and
shaped largely by regulatory requirements associated with the require the integration of green infrastructure into stormwater
Clean Water Act, and by the City’s limited supply of develop- management systems by: 1) minimizing impervious area, and
able land. Beginning August 15, 2006, the National Pollutant 2) including vegetative stormwater controls. Emeryville’s

Case Study—Emeryville, CA
41
green infrastructure provisions address the entire life span of Implementation
stormwater treatment systems—from design to maintenance
Though.Emeryville’s.green.infrastructure.policies.are.
and inspection. Design provisions require all developers to
relatively.new,.implementation.has.proceeded.smoothly,.
comply with the City’s “Stormwater Guidelines for Green,
and.at.least.10.projects.have.incorporated.the.guidelines.
Dense Redevelopment,”1 and permitting provisions require
so.far..These.projects.include.the.GlasHaus.development,.
developers of lots 10,000 square feet or larger to enter into
which.planted.vegetation.on.a.podium.level.to.capture.and.
an operations and maintenance agreement. This system of
treat.stormwater,.and.Green.City.Lofts,.a.62-unit.develop-
requirements, guidelines, and permits requires developers to
ment.that.reuses.stormwater.for.irrigation.on.site..Developer.
address the design and maintenance of green infrastructure
resistance.is.low,.and.experience.to.date.has.demonstrated.
throughout the project’s planning and operation.
that.additional.costs.may.be.minimal..If.stormwater.treatment.
measures.are.addressed.early.in.the.planning.process,.the.
Emeryville’s high water table, dense development patterns,
project.can.easily.integrate.space.requirements.and.may.even.
and compacted or contaminated soils pose significant chal-
achieve.operational.savings..
lenges to green infrastructure. Infiltration opportunities
are often limited, and infiltration in contaminated soils
Green.infrastructure.offers.many.benefits.aside.from.storm-
could pose a risk to groundwater. To promote the installa-
water.treatment..The.integration.of.green.infrastructure.into.
tion of green infrastructure systems adapted to the City’s
streets,.parking.lots,.landscapes.and.buildings.can.create.
unique constraints, Emeryville developed and published the
more.pedestrian.friendly.spaces,.calm.traffic,.improve.air.
“Stormwater Guidelines for Green, Dense Redevelopment.”
quality,.reduce.the.urban.heat.island.effect,.create.habitat,.and.
These guidelines offer developers a range of green infra-
improve.energy.efficiency..As.permeable.pavements,.native.
structure alternatives grouped into two general strategies:
plantings,.and.other.green.infrastructure.practices.become.
innovative parking solutions to reduce runoff and innovative
standard.features.of.new.construction,.Emeryville.expects.its.
stormwater controls to manage and treat runoff. The inte-
green.infrastructure.system.to.enhance.urban.livability.and.
grated parking strategies included in the guidelines reduce
sustain.its.economic.renewal..
runoff by reducing the number of parking spaces required by
the community. These strategies include pricing strategies,
transportation demand measures, and parking information and
guidance systems.

The innovative stormwater controls include methods to

infiltrate, evapotranspire and/or harvest and use stormwater,
while adapting to space constraints and preserving ground-
water quality. These controls take many forms—from green
roofs to permeable pavements—but all follow a few general
principles. First, many of the stormwater controls consist of
plantings or landscaped areas designed to serve as compo-
nents of the stormwater treatment system, rather than orna-
ments. Second, all stormwater controls may be integrated
into the urban mosaic of a dense city. Finally, all stormwater
controls that infiltrate stormwater include under-drains
connected to the sewer system to reduce the risk of ground- Figure 2: Multi-level or stacked parking behind a business further reduces
imperviousness and complies with Emeryville’s “Stormwater Guidelines
water contamination. The guidelines also include a numeric for Green, Dense Redevelopment.”
sizing methodology to aid developers in sizing green infra-
structure facilities.

1
Emeryville’s Stormwater Guidelines for Green, Dense Redevelopment: http://www.
epa.gov/smartgrowth/emeryville.htm

42 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Lenexa, Kansas CASE STUDY

Overview manual to comply with its new National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit.1
Lenexa, Kansas, is a growing suburb in metropolitan Kansas
City that faces increasing pressure from the impacts of new
Lenexa’s updated post-construction stormwater ordinance
development, including more homes, roads and other imper-
applies to both new and redevelopment projects and priori-
vious surfaces that create more runoff. In an effort to protect
tizes water quality by assigning rankings for different storm-
local water quality, as well as prevent flooding and improve
water management practices based on their value for water
the quality of life for residents, Lenexa’s comprehensive plan,
quality performance. Developers are thinking creatively about
Vision 2020, initiated Rain to Recreation, an innovative and
how to meet the new standards, selecting low-impact devel-
integrated watershed protection program.
opment practices that are both functional and aesthetically
pleasing for residents and tenants. These natural and func-
Rain to Recreation outlines a number of policies and programs
tional green infrastructure designs complement neighborhood
to protect land from future development and introduce new
revitalization plans and gain multiple benefits for the environ-
green infrastructure practices that limit imperviousness and
ment and community.
manage runoff on site. Since the program began in 2000,
it has grown to include both regulatory and non-regulatory
approaches as well as major capital projects and land acqui-
sitions. From protection of priority natural resource areas
in the watershed, to creation of riparian greenways through
application of the stream setback ordinance, down to requiring
low-impact development practices on site, Lenexa is investing
in green infrastructure at all three scales, including the water-
shed, neighborhood and site levels.

Regulatory Changes
In 2001, as part of the larger comprehensive plan, Lenexa
established an integrated Stormwater and Watershed
Management Master Plan that focuses on correcting existing
problems in developed areas, building new facilities to
minimize runoff and protecting undeveloped lands. In 2004, Figure 1: A constructed 1st order intermittent stream in a
neighborhood development slows and infiltrates stormwater
Lenexa increased its requirements in favor of stormwater runoff, while adding aesthetic value for residents. Plant
management practices that infiltrate, reuse and evapotrans- selection and landscape transition plantings were carefully
considered for acceptance.
pirate runoff by passing a stormwater ordinance and design

1
To access Lenexa’s Phase II NPDES Permit, go to http://www.raintorecreation.org/
idde_program_plan.pdf

Case Study—Lenexa, KS
43
Figure 2: Lenexa’s Parks and Trails Plan outlines existing and future projects to protect and preserve open space, especially right around streams (shown
in green as protected by the setback ordinance) and sensitive sub-watersheds.

Land Acquisition and Restoration Projects Creative Funding

Lenexa.is.not.just.motivated.by.water.quality.improvements,. Lenexa uses creative and long-term funding for these major
but.is.also.driven.to.use.green.infrastructure.practices.and. land purchases and projects, as well as for the day-to-day
plans to address flood concerns, stream erosion and quality of staffing and management of the Rain to Recreation program.
life improvements for local citizens. Water quality and water In 2000, Lenexa taxpayers voted for a ballot to add a 1/8 cent
quantity are addressed through different policy mechanisms. sales tax to support building stormwater facilities that repair
While the new stormwater ordinance deals directly with water existing infrastructure problems and protect against future
quality, water quantity is being minimized through large-scale flooding events. In addition, Lenexa established a stormwater
projects that the City builds on its own. utility to provide sustainable funding for its new programs.
The stormwater utility charge is based on the amount of
The City purchases land in priority areas to provide flood runoff surface on each parcel of land. Each property is
mitigation, stream protection, water quality improvement charged $5.50 (in 2008) per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU),
and recreational amenities. For example, Lake of the Prairie which is measured at 2,750 square feet, or about the average
and Mize Lake are two projects that restore and stabilize runoff surface area of a house with a driveway. Commercial
damaged sections of streams, create new wetland areas and and non-residential properties are charged based upon amount
include plans to construct large recreational and educational of stormwater runoff generated and rates are calculated by
amenities. The largest project in Lenexa is a $26 million dividing total runoff surface area by the number of square feet
project called Lake Lenexa, which includes a 35-acre lake at in an EDU (2,750) to more closely charge these larger proper-
the center of a nearly 350-acre public park. The comprehen- ties by runoff contributions to the public system.
sive design for Lake Lenexa includes wetlands, rain gardens,
stream restorations, trails and boardwalks, recreational space
In 2004, the Lenexa City Council adopted the Systems
and art and education areas. The City bought the property to
Development Charge to require new developments to pay a
protect the land from potential development and to enhance
one-time fee at the time of the building permit as a means
existing natural resources.
for recovering costs for capital improvement activities. This
charge works like a fee-in-lieu mechanism where developers

44 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
are paying the City to manage water quantity that is created
by the addition of new impervious surfaces.

Continued grants from state and federal sources, such as

Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source funding
for park construction and Surface Transportation Project
funding for roadway projects, have assisted with capital and
demonstration projects like Lake Lenexa. Other sources of
funding also support Lenexa’s stormwater program, including
Johnson County Stormwater Management Advisory Council
funding supported by a 1/10 cent sales tax and basic permit-
ting fees charged to developers. Together, these funding
sources ensure long-term watershed protection through the
continued creation, operation and maintenance of green
infrastructure practices.

Overall, Lenexa wields strong local control to require

more rain gardens, bioswales and other forms of green
infrastructure in private development projects. At the same
time, through the Rain to Recreation program, the City
invests heavily in large land preservation and restoration
projects that provide key neighborhood and watershed
scale green infrastructure.

Case Study—Lenexa, KS
45
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Olympia, Washington CASE STUDY

Overview
Olympia, Washington, is the capital city of the State of
Washington and is located on the Puget Sound, a sensitive
estuary in the Pacific Ocean. Olympia’s Storm and Surface
Water Utility works alongside other city departments, such
as Planning and Zoning, and Parks, Arts, and Recreation, and
businesses and residents, to promote best available science
and local innovation that can help enhance water quality,
prevent flooding and protect aquatic ecosystems.

Drivers
Olympia’s Storm and Surface Water Plan aims to protect and
improve water quality, maintain and prevent further degrada-
tion of aquatic habitat and minimize flooding. Olympia is part Figure 1: A green roof at Evergreen College was built to offset the addition
of new impervious surfaces from new parking spaces.
of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit, which requires five counties and 81 cities to manage
stormwater before it discharges to surface and groundwater. Evergreen State University that helped offset new parking
In addition to regulatory drivers, the citizens and decision spaces on campus.
makers in Olympia hope to protect salmon populations and
aquatic habitat for many species, which are harmed in already Environmental Planning and Policy Development
degraded urban waterways and threatened in still healthy parts The utility and other city departments are working together
of the watershed. to promote better understanding of green infrastructure
approaches and to incorporate performance measures and
Policies evaluation tools into new policies and programs.
Olympia’s Storm and Surface Water Plan supports better
Capital Facilities
watershed protection and runoff reduction through a variety of
The City is developing new stormwater management and
policy and funding mechanisms.
restoration projects on public lands around important streams
On-site Stormwater Requirements and waterways. Projects include land acquisition, conservation
easements and other ecosystem protections and improvements.
Olympia’s stormwater regulations require that developments
infiltrate 91 percent of runoff through on-site management.
Development Review
The City works with developers to offset the addition of
The utility, along with the Community Planning and
new impervious surfaces through effective green infrastruc-
Development Department, continue to update local develop-
ture practices. For example, Figure 1 shows a green roof at
ment codes to ensure compliance with stormwater manage-
ment and water quality requirements, as well as encourage

Case Study—Olympia, WA
47
innovation in the development community. The City is trying
to reach out to the development community to promote better
site planning, soil and slope protection and inclusion of green
infrastructure practices that reduce impervious surfaces and
infiltrate runoff.

Code Enforcement and Technical Assistance

The City monitors and evaluates stormwater practices on
private properties, as well as provides direct assistance
to homeowners and commercial sites to help them more
effectively introduce green infrastructure practices that
are cost effective.

Storm and Surface Water Utility

Olympia’s stormwater rate structure secures annual revenues Figure 2: A medical center in Olympia, Washington, manages runoff from
the roof and other impervious areas through small swales and permeable
used for basic system maintenance, expansion and rebuilding sidewalks.
of infrastructure to meet state and federal regulations and
improve water quality and protect aquatic habitat.
Implementation
Permeable Streets and Sidewalks Olympia continues to evaluate and refine the various poli-
The City of Olympia began using permeable pavement in cies and programs that support better land use and on-site
1999 and continues to develop new projects and retrofit stormwater management practices. The City employs a
existing surfaces to reduce runoff through infiltration. Cost range of policies for new developments that add impervious
and benefit evaluations, maintenance information and tech- surfaces and for existing sites that can be retrofitted to better
nical specifications developed through early demonstration manage runoff on site. Past experience with green infrastruc-
projects have helped the City continue to use permeable mate- ture helped the City secure Recovery Act State Revolving
rials on trails, sidewalks, streets and bike lanes. Funds in 2009 to develop 10 acres of city-owned park land
with green infrastructure. The project will provide enhanced
In 2005, the City developed a memorandum describing the treatment for 840 acre-feet of runoff per year through a water
rationale for using pervious concrete in the construction of quality treatment wetland, bio-retention ponds, a 5,000 square
city-funded sidewalks, based on a study showing that it is foot rain garden, a new parking lot with porous pavement
more cost-effective to construct and maintain pervious side- and water harvesting and re-use for irrigation. These large
walks to meet stormwater storage and treatment requirements scale projects complement requirements for private property
than to construct and maintain traditional sidewalks.1 The owners to better manage runoff on site to protect the Puget
study considered both construction and maintenance costs and Sound and other priority streams in and around Olympia.
found that traditional sidewalks totaled $101 per square yard
while pervious sidewalks cost only $54 per square yard.

1
Memorandum on Traditional versus Pervious Concrete Sidewalks Construction
and Maintenance Cost: http://olympiawa.gov/~/media/Files/PublicWorks/PDFs/
WaterResources/Traditional%20vs%20Pervious%20Concrete%20Sidewalks%20
Memo.ashx”

48 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania CASE STUDY

Overview Drivers: Asset Management and Smart

Philadelphia has a sewer collection system that is 60 percent Investment
combined sewer and 40 percent municipal separate storm The.Philadelphia.Water.Department.(PWD).emphasizes.the
sewer system (MS4) and is working to improve stormwater role.that.green.infrastructure.can.play.in.extending.the.service
management through restoration and demonstration efforts, of.existing.stormwater.infrastructure..The.City.expects.to.
regulations and incentives for the private sector and a revised save money on the cost of maintaining pipe networks and
stormwater billing system. Green infrastructure is an effective treatment plants by removing flow from these systems. PWD
approach for Philadelphia, which recognizes the links between plans to increasingly invest in decentralized green infrastruc-
land use and water quality and the overlapping economic, ture that minimizes runoff where possible and otherwise
environmental and community benefits that can be gained manages it at the source. In addition, PWD implements green
through green infrastructure. infrastructure as an acceptable method for meeting Clean
Water Act goals. Currently, green infrastructure implemen-
Philadelphia is in the process of completing watershed- tation is in the demonstration phase, in which projects are
wide plans for each stream system in the City, working with designed and monitored.
neighboring municipalities through watershed partnerships.
However, the City also outlines regulatory areas by sewer- Although permit compliance prioritizes green infrastructure
sheds and drainage areas. This allows the City to prioritize and performance for aquatic habitat health and water quality, a
justify new green infrastructure projects based on intended core goal of creating more green roofs, rain gardens and street
outcomes and for meeting the conditions of their National swales is to improve the quality of life for residents and visi-
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and combined sewer tors by retrofitting dense urban areas and restoring the state
overflow (CSO) requirements. of waterways that have long been destroyed by heavy flows,
trash and other impacts of urban runoff. A green infrastruc-
Philadelphia is trying to institutionalize green infrastructure as ture approach allows Philadelphia to integrate goals for
standard practice in all development projects as well as capital land, water, community and infrastructure, making it a smart
improvement projects undertaken by city agencies. Citywide investment with multiple benefits.
policies, such as Green Plan Philadelphia, the Green Roof Tax
Credit and the Green Streets program support the widespread Impervious-Based Billing
creation and preservation of functional green spaces on both
The stormwater billing system is being revised in Philadelphia
publicly and privately owned land. From sewershed demon-
to create a more equitable fee structure by using a parcel-
strations to stormwater fee discount programs, more and more
based system that more closely reflects the costs for managing
opportunities exist for landscape architects to be a central
stormwater from each property. Rates will be set by deter-
part of the planning and design of private and public projects
mining the amount of a property’s impervious cover and
throughout Philadelphia.
thereby the amount of runoff a property will generate. As a
result, 80 percent of the City’s new stormwater fee is based

Case Study—Philadelphia, PA
49
upon a property’s impervious area, with the remaining 20 Revised Stormwater Regulations
percent based upon the property’s gross area. In this way,
One of the key features of Philadelphia’s updated storm-
stormwater fees will reach non-metered customers such as
water regulations is that they encourage urban infill through
vacant lots, parking lots and utility right-of-ways that account
exemptions for redevelopment projects. Focusing devel-
for significant impervious space (and stormwater runoff)
opments in vacant or infill areas helps to reduce the total
within the City.
imperviousness throughout the region. Additionally, on-site
stormwater management with vegetated systems will provide
Philadelphia offers a stormwater fee discount up to 100
a range of benefits beyond just water quality improvements.
percent of the impervious area charge, gross area charge or
Implemented in January 2006, these new regulations apply
both for customers who reduce impervious cover using green
to all developments resulting in earth disturbance of 15,000
infrastructure practices, including rain gardens, infiltration
square feet or more. Redevelopment projects may be exempt
trenches, porous pavements, vegetated swales and green
from Channel Protection and Flood Control Requirements if
roofs. If a property is retrofitted with any of these features, the
they can reduce directly connected impervious area by at least
PWD will re-calculate that property’s stormwater fee based
20 percent. In effect, most developers now build on infill lots
on the 80/20 impervious/gross area formula.
instead of undeveloped, natural areas. Most redevelopment
projects reach the 20 percent reduction by any of the approved
By creating simple financial incentives for developers to
methods that count as “Disconnecting Your Impervious Area,”
reduce site imperviousness, the City is getting the develop-
such as disconnecting downspouts, pavement disconnection,
ment community to build green infrastructure projects that
tree canopy increase, impervious cover decrease, green roofs
will help achieve citywide goals for watershed improvements,
and porous pavements.
flood mitigation and community amenities.

The success of the new stormwater regulations are contin-

gent upon the fact that PWD requires projects to get concept
approval for water, sewer and stormwater before zoning
permits are considered. This early requirement for stormwater
design approval results in better decentralized stormwater
management systems that work with the natural hydrology of
the site.

Implementation
In 2006–2007, the first year of the new stormwater regu-
lations, the City saw over one square mile built out with
low-impact development features. These practices, when fully
built out, will manage most one-inch storms, reducing CSO
inputs by 25 billion gallons, which PWD estimates will save
the City $170 million. The success of this program has helped
Figure 1: Philadelphia’s new impervious-based fee encourages retrofits of create political and public support for integrating green infra-
large impervious sites, such as the Wissahickon Charter School (above), structure throughout the City.
which now intercepts all parking lot runoff with rain gardens.

However, Philadelphia is not relying on stormwater regula-

tions alone to create more green projects. As the figure below
shows, stormwater regulations only result in 20 percent of
the total land served by land-based controls, and that 20

50 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
percent is only reached after
the regulations have been in 18,000

place for 20 years. In effect, Stormwater

16,000 Service Charges
Public Parcels
Philadelphia’s program and Incentives

includes policies and projects 14,000

Vacant Lands

that also address public lands, Stormwater Green Streets

Regulations
streets, vacant properties and 12,000

Total CSO Volume (MG/yr)

Alley Program
waterfront separation. From
10,000
financial incentives and assis-
tance for retrofits to internal 8,000
policies for increased use of
green infrastructure prac- 6,000
tices, Philadelphia is using a
4,000 Waterfront Planning
range of regulatory and non- and Development
Special Service
regulatory approaches to make 2,000 Districts
economic, environmental and
community improvements 0
with green infrastructure. Baseline 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of Impervious Area served by Land Based Controls

Figure 2: Philadelphia’s approach to converting different land use types to include green infrastructure for
managing stormwater. Graph courtesy of Philadelphia Water Department.

Case Study—Philadelphia, PA
51
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Portland, Oregon CASE STUDY

Overview
Portland, Oregon, is often cited as the prime example for
green stormwater management, and with good reason.
Portland has one of the most mature and comprehensive green
infrastructure programs in the country, with multiple overlap-
ping policies and programs that have seen several iterations
over time to become as well established and successful as
they are today. The City has taken the initiative, and to some
degree, the risk, necessary to implement a citywide program.
In addition to substantial combined sewer overflow (CSO)
tunnel costs (total costs to sewer ratepayers is estimated at
$1.4 billion), Portland is investing in green infrastructure,
in part to offset costs for major gray infrastructure. The City
considers its $9 million investment in green infrastructure to
save ratepayers $224 million in CSO costs, such as in main-
tenance and repair costs. But on top of the direct stormwater
benefits, Portland sees a number of additional benefits whether
for Coho salmon and Steelhead trout or for residents in
Figure 1: Tanner Springs Park in Portland, Oregon, features
neighborhoods with Green Streets and Watershed Stewardship a 5,300 square foot pond fed by rainwater captured from the
Grant projects. The array of policies listed above attest to the entire park.
fact that Portland considers stormwater a resource to highlight
rather than a problem to quickly remove.
Portland’s Downspout Disconnection Program targets
homes and small businesses in the combined sewer areas
Build Out and Practices Used and provides a great opportunity for public education about
Technologies as varied as planters, rain gardens, swales, stormwater and CSOs. This is in addition to the direct benefit
porous paving, rainwater harvesting, green streets and discon- of having 56,000 properties with disconnected downspouts,
nected downspouts are found in abundance and with good resulting in 1.2 billion gallons of stormwater kept out of the
representation throughout Portland. These practices are found combined sewer system since 1994. Portland’s Clean River
in a range of settings, including parking lots, apartment build- Rewards, or stormwater charge discount program, has seen
ings, schools, private businesses, government offices and over 35,000 participants, including both residential and
in public spaces like parks and riverside esplanades. Again, commercial property owners. These discounts have resulted
the multiplicity of policies, from requiring on-site manage- in $4 million in retroactive credits for properties with low-
ment for public and private development to incentive-based impact development (LID) already in place at the program’s
programs for homeowners and developers, has resulted in inception and another $1.5 million in discounted fees for
innovation in design and function. newly participating properties.

Case Study—Portland, OR
53
Portland effectively blends regulations with incentives. Where 3.. Off-site.flow.to.drainageway,.river.or.storm-only.
local codes and ordinances can make a difference, they are pipe.system.
employed. But for existing properties or for more immediate
results, other programs have been created, including grants, 4.. Off-site.flow.to.a.combined.sewer.pipe.system.
incentives and discounts.
Green Streets
Requiring Green Infrastructure Portland’s.Green.Streets.Program.is.a.cross-bureau.policy.
Portland’s current Stormwater Management Code and Manual adopted.by.the.City.Council.in.2007.to.“incorporate.the.use.
outline the requirements that apply to all projects within the of.green.street.facilities.in.public.and.private.development”.to.
City of Portland, whether public or private. All projects devel- achieve.a.range.of.benefits:
oping or redeveloping over 500 square feet of impervious
surface, or existing properties proposing new stormwater ●. Handles.stormwater.on.site.through.use.of.vegetated.

discharges off-site, are required to comply with pollution facilities.

reduction and flow control requirements. Projects of any size
●. Provides.water.quality.benefits.and.replenishes.ground-
must meet the Destination/Disposal Requirement, which
water.(if.an.infiltration.facility).
includes a hierarchical system designed to “mimic predevel-
oped hydrologic conditions by requiring on-site infiltration ●. Creates.attractive.streetscapes.that.enhance.neighborhood.
wherever practicable:” livability.by.enhancing.the.pedestrian.environment.and.
introducing.park-like.elements.into.neighborhoods.
1. On-site infiltration with a surface infiltration facility.
●. Meets.broader.community.goals.by.providing.pedestrian.

2. On-site infiltration with a public infiltration sump system, and,.where.appropriate,.bicycle.access..

private drywell or soakage trench.
●. Serves.as.an.urban.greenway.segment.that.connects.neigh-
borhoods,.parks,.recreation.facilities,.schools,.main.streets.
and.wildlife.habitats.

Green.Streets.are.a.citywide.priority.that.formalizes.the.
process.to.“overlay.multi-bureau.project.plans.and.scheduled.
Capital.Improvement.Program.(CIP).projects”.to.identify.how.
LID.can.be.incorporated.into.plans.for.new.streets.and.retro-
fits..By.locating.the.overlap.of.goals.and.beneficial.outcomes.
of.vegetated.stormwater.systems.in.the.right-of-way,.Green.
Streets.have.been.institutionalized.into.citywide.policies.
and.funding..

Tours, Signage and Public Outreach

Portland.Bureau.of.Environmental.Services.has.several.pre-
designed.walking.and.cycling.tours.that.encourage.residents.
and.tourists.to.explore.the.range.of.ecoroofs,.stormwater.
projects.and.green.streets.locations.in.the.City..The.signage.
and.descriptions.that.accompany.these.facilities.engage.the.
public.to.be.more.aware.and.knowledgeable.about.the.role.of.
Figure 2: Portland’s first Green Streets project at NE 35th and stormwater.in.the.urban.setting..They.also.provide.demonstra-
Siskiyou features curb cuts, bump outs and swales.
tions.for.practitioners.and.professionals.in.landscape.architec-
ture,.engineering.and.other.relevant.fields.

54 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
Floor Area Bonus for Roof Gardens Portland. Since October 2006, 14,000 registrations have
and Ecoroofs been processed.

The.Floor.Area.Bonus.for.Roof.Gardens.and.Ecoroofs.
Implementation
increases.a.building’s.allowable.area.in.exchange.for.adding.
an.ecoroof..This.incentive.program.has.produced.an.estimated. Monitoring and learning from demonstration projects was a
$225.million.in.additional.private.development.at.11.partici- key element in the early stages of implementing new poli-
pating.sites..The.program.has.stimulated.ecoroof.develop- cies for managing stormwater with vegetated systems. This
ments.and.added.to.the.more.than.120.ecoroofs.in.the.City.. iterative process of addressing the requirements for municipal
This.kind.of.local.development.incentive.stimulates.LID. separate storm sewer systems and combined sewer systems,
designs.and.practices.while.also.encouraging.further.market. while also demonstrating LID approaches, helped Portland to
development.for.green.infrastructure.. establish one of the most mature and functional hybrid storm-
water systems in the United States.
Community Watershed Stewardship Grants
The learning curve for practitioners, including local engi-
Community.Watershed.Stewardship.Grants.provide.technical. neers and developers as well as internal city staff such as
assistance.and.financial.support.and.foster.partnerships.for. permit reviewers and inspectors, can slow the process of
community-initiated.projects.to.improve.watershed.health.. transitioning from a purely piped system to a hybrid system
Projects.have.included.ecoroofs,.parking.lot.swales,.habitat. that includes natural drainage elements. However, as Tom
restoration.and.downspout.disconnects..Between.1995.and. Liptan from BES has stated, the winning formula throughout
2005,.the.program.awarded.108.grants.in.all.subwatersheds. the initial stages of creating new policies was to identify
around.the.City,.engaging.more.than.27,000.citizens..This. partners and start with small projects that can then evolve
widespread.community.engagement.and.on-the-ground.neigh- into official policy.
borhood.improvements.foster.a.larger.support.network.for.
green.infrastructure.policies.while.also.resulting.in.context-
sensitive.solutions.that.are.both.instigated.and.maintained.by.
local.stakeholders..

Clean River Rewards

Clean.River.Rewards.discount.stormwater.user.fees.up.to.100.
percent.of.the.on-site.stormwater.management.services.and.
up.to.35.percent.of.the.total.stormwater.bill..Fee.reductions.
are.calculated.based.on.the.extent.and.effectiveness.of.prac-
tices.to.limit.flow.rate,.pollution.and.disposal..Participation.
is.expected.to.reach.110,000.of.the.176,000.ratepayers.in.

Case Study—Portland, OR
55
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

San Jose, California CASE STUDY

Overview The volume-based standard requires the stormwater controls

to capture either the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event, or
Located south of the San Francisco Bay in the Silicon
80 percent of the volume of annual runoff; the flow-based
Valley, San Jose is the third largest city in California and the
standard requires stormwater controls to treat a certain flow
tenth largest city in the United States. Once a small farming
rate. These standards apply to both building and road projects,
community, San Jose experienced rapid automobile-oriented
requiring the management of runoff generated throughout the
development from the 1950s–1970s, growing to a population
built environment.
of about 1 million today. San Jose’s approach to stormwater
management and green infrastructure is driven largely by
Federal and State regulations. To comply with the require-
Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment
ments of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued Control
by California to the City of San Jose and its neighbors, San San Jose has built upon the framework provided by Federal
Jose has developed a comprehensive stormwater program, and State regulations by adopting policies that require early
including early integration of stormwater planning into the integration of stormwater planning into the development
development process, quantitative performance standards, and process, and promotes vegetation and infiltration-based
the promotion of vegetation and infiltration-based stormwater approaches to stormwater management. Recognizing that
controls. San Jose’s stormwater program is also unique in its much of a project’s impact on runoff rates and volumes is
integration with smart growth objectives. As San Jose pursues determined by site design and grading plans, the City of
more compact, transit-oriented development, it has adapted San Jose developed an Urban Runoff Management Policy
its stormwater program to accommodate and promote smart that requires developers to demonstrate compliance with
growth projects. performance standards early in the planning process. Before
development applications are accepted, all new development
Regulatory Drivers or redevelopment projects that meet the impervious surface
thresholds defined in the Municipal Regional Stormwater
The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards
Permit must submit a Stormwater Control Plan. Stormwater
(RWQCBs) develop and administer stormwater permits for
Control Plans must illustrate how the project will integrate
municipalities in California. The stormwater permit issued
site design, source control measures, and treatment control
by the San Francisco RWQCB to San Jose and 77 of its
measures to comply with appropriate performance standards.
neighbors is particularly progressive in addressing the source
The San Jose Department of Planning reviews development
of water quality impairments. The Municipal Regional
applications before granting permits, and inspects approved
Stormwater Permit supplements qualitative requirements with
projects during construction to verify compliance.
quantitative performance standards, which assures devel-
opment that is protective of water quality, while allowing
Developers are encouraged to minimize impervious surface
developers significant flexibility. In San Jose, all new devel-
to reduce the generation of stormwater runoff, and to treat
opment or redevelopment projects that create 10,000 square
any runoff generated with vegetative swales, biofilters or
feet or more of impervious surface are required to comply
other landscape-based infiltration features. These measures
with a set of low impact development (LID) requirements,
are recommended not only because of their environmental
supplemented by more quantitative numeric sizing criteria.

Case Study—San Jose, CA

57
performance, but also because they are cost-effective and Implementation
require limited maintenance. The Urban Runoff Management
Developers have responded to San Jose’s Urban Runoff
Policy also includes a unique provision to promote tree
Management requirements with a variety of innovative
planting. The policy indicates that new trees planted within
stormwater management techniques. Perhaps the most effec-
30 feet of impervious surfaces can receive credit as post-
tive element of San Jose’s stormwater management policy is
construction treatment control measures.
the 10,000 square foot threshold for new development and
redevelopment. Because projects that create less than 10,000
Integration with Smart Growth square feet of impervious surface are exempt from the Urban
The City of San Jose views its green infrastructure and smart Runoff Management requirements, developers are finding
growth objectives as complementary. Smart growth policies creative ways to reduce impervious surface, including: narrow
can advance the water quality objectives of green infrastruc- streets, shared driveways, vegetated swales and pervious
ture by directing development toward existing buildings and pavement. Planning staff generally review over 300 plans
infrastructure and preserving undeveloped land. Similarly, per year, and around 90 percent of these projects are able to
green infrastructure policies can advance the community revi- reduce their total imperviousness below the 10,000 square
talization objectives of smart growth by increasing the urban foot threshold.
tree canopy and vegetation and creating more livable commu-
nities. To accommodate the higher density of impervious San Jose’s stormwater policies are also promoting the expan-
surfaces in smart growth projects, San Jose provides credit for sion of urban green space. Many projects apply for the tree
smart growth projects towards its Urban Runoff Management credit, which includes planting new trees and expanding the
requirements. At the discretion of city staff, smart growth urban tree canopy. This range of incentives helps to ensure
projects that can treat runoff on site may be designated “water that as San Jose increases density in already developed areas,
quality benefit projects,” and are not required to contribute to these neighborhoods are gaining the benefit of green infra-
regional or off-site treatment. structure practices.

Figure 1: Guadalupe River Park in San Jose, California, features green

infrastructure systems alongside dense downtown redevelopment. Photo
courtesy of Michael Patrick via Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/
michaelpatrick/ 2408259482/.

58 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Santa Monica, California CASE STUDY

Overview
The City of Santa Monica, California, is located on the
Santa Monica Bay and is surrounded on the other three
sides by the City of Los Angeles. Water quality is central
to Santa Monica’s economy and community because of its
beachfront location. With a population of around 87,000
and just over 8 square miles of land, Santa Monica is a very
high density city that must manage stormwater runoff from
impervious surfaces, as well as dry-weather runoff from car
washing, overwatering of landscapes, and other non-wet
weather events.

Santa Monica uses various forms of green infrastructure to

manage both dry-weather and wet-weather runoff, including
Figure 1: This commercial site includes parking lot swales to bioinfiltrate
pervious pavements, water-wise landscaping, and rainwater impervious surface runoff.
harvesting. Santa Monica uses regulations, incentives and
public education campaigns to integrate green infrastructure In response to regulatory responsibilities, such as EPA’s
into streets, parks and private properties. Santa Monica’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Total
green infrastructure efforts are supported by the Sustainable Maximum Daily Loads for trash and bacteria, Santa Monica
City Plan, which provides a framework for the use of storm- adopted a Watershed Management Plan in 2006 to protect and
water management practices that both limit potable water use improve the water quality of Santa Monica Bay. The plan lays
and manages runoff on site. out the following priorities to balance urban land use with
ecosystem function:
Drivers: Beach and Water Quality Protection 1. Reduce urban runoff pollution
As a beach community, Santa Monica more than doubles its 2. Reduce urban flooding
population each day as tourists and workers enter the City.
3. Increase water conservation
Urban runoff is the largest contributor of pollutants entering
the beach and nearby waters, and threatens the economic 4. Increase recreational opportunities and open space
viability and community amenities of this beach-side commu- 5. Increase wildlife and marine habitat.
nity. The City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment
states that, “a cleaner bay means a healthier marine ecosystem Green Infrastructure Policies
and improved quality of life for residents, and increases Santa
Santa Monica meets these watershed management goals with
Monica’s appeal to visitors and businesses.”1
a stormwater management ordinance, stormwater fee, rebate
program and capital improvement projects.

  http://www.smgov.net/departments/ose/categories/urbanRunoff.aspx
1

Case Study—Santa Monica, CA

59
Stormwater Management Ordinance
Santa.Monica’s.stormwater.ordinance.provides.water.quality.
guidelines.for.existing.properties.and.new.construction.sites.
to.reduce.the.level.of.pollutants.leaving.the.site..It.requires.
all.newly.developed.or.retrofitted.parcels.to.manage.the.first.
0.75″.of.runoff.from.impermeable.surfaces,.which.accounts.
for.approximately.80.percent.of.storm.events.annually.

The.City.provides.waivers.for.impracticability.based.on.
space.constraints,.soil.type.or.groundwater.contamination.
concerns,.but.requires.developers.to.pay.an.appropriate.
mitigation.fee..This.in-lieu.fee.is.then.used.to.fund.larger.
city.projects.to.retrofit.streets,.parks.and.other.sites.to.better.
manage.urban.runoff..

Stormwater Fees
Santa.Monica.has.two.stormwater.parcel.fees,.the.Stormwater.
User.Fee.and.the.Clean.Beaches.&.Ocean.Parcel.Tax,.that.are.
used.to.implement.the.watershed.management.program.and.
that.support.compliance.with.Federal.and.State.Clean.Water.
Act.regulations..The.fees.are.paid.annually.by.all.property.
owners.and.are.assessed.through.property.taxes..In.2009.and.
2010,.the.fees.together.generated.around.$3.9.million.a.year..

Rebate Program
Figure 2: Santa Monica offers rebates for water harvesting and reuse to
Santa.Monica.offers.four.rebates.for.private.property.owners. help reduce the amount of polluted urban runoff that reaches the beach.
to.encourage.rainwater.harvesting..
Capital Improvement Projects and Streets
1.. The.Rain.Gutter.Downspout.Redirect.Rebate.provides.up. Santa Monica’s Watershed Management Plan explicitly calls
to.$40.per.qualified.downspout.that.redirects.downspout. for interagency partnerships on capital improvement projects
runoff.to.permeable.and/or.landscaped.surfaces..All.down- undertaken by the Planning and Community Development
spouts.on.a.given.property.can.qualify.for.the.$40.rebate,. Department, the Open Space Management Division and the
which.is.meant.to.cover.both.labor.and.material.costs.. Housing and Redevelopment Division. Because Santa Monica
2.. The.Rain.Barrel.Rebate.provides.property.owners.$100. is a relatively small city, incorporating green infrastructure
per.barrel.with.a.capacity.of.up.to.199.gallons.and.covers. into all capital improvement projects is as simple as working
costs.for.design,.labor.and.materials. with the urban runoff manager who can review plans, make
recommendations and later conduct inspections. The City has
3.. The.Small.Cistern.Rebate.offers.up.to.$250.per.cistern.
retrofitted several existing streets and parking lots to include
with.a.capacity.of.200.to.499.gallons.and.covers.costs.for.
porous pavement and bioinfiltration areas, such as Bicknell
design,.labor.and.materials..
Avenue. This project reduced the overall street width by 16
4.. The.Large.Cistern.Rebate.offers.up.to.$500.per.cistern. feet and retrofitted the parking lane with pervious pavers to
with.a.capacity.of.more.than.500.gallons.and.covers.costs. infiltrate runoff from the street. The redesign also calls for
for.design,.labor.and.materials.. 12-foot wide biofilter swales on either side of the street to
further manage roadway runoff.

60 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Seattle, Washington CASE STUDY

Overview still thrive in many creeks of the Pacific Northwest, but their
future health is at risk and has become a high priority for both
The City of Seattle, located on the Puget Sound in
residents and regulators. SPU takes a demand management
Washington State, boasts many successful green infrastruc-
approach by investing public resources in areas of the City
ture projects and policies, many of which started out as pilot
with the most sensitive sub-basins and creeks, using practices
programs and grew to have a much broader application and
that infiltrate stormwater runoff into soils, which treats water
impact. Seattle’s approach includes several internal policies
for pollutants and recharges waterbodies slowly through
to require green infrastructure in public property standards,
groundwater recharge.
such as for street designs and capital project plans. At the
same time, Seattle leverages its control of local codes and
development policies to encourage and require green infra-
structure on private property.

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) is the local agency responsible

for meeting National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
permit requirements and it coordinates the City’s Natural
Drainage System (NDS) approach, which supports the use
of green infrastructure at the site level and in terms of larger
development planning and design.

SPU has made strategic decisions about using demonstra-

tion projects, such as the original 2nd Avenue Street Edge
Alternatives (SEA) Street or the Seattle Green Factor,1 to
introduce new policies or methods for implementing green
Figure 1: Seattle Green Factor requires landscaping features with storm-
infrastructure. Many of the lessons learned from these earlier
water management benefits.
and easier projects are now being transferred to the rest of the
City, including more challenging and highly urbanized areas.
Seattle also chooses to use green infrastructure systems, often
in the public right-of-way, in areas where surface vegetation
Drivers: Sensitive Water Bodies not only manages stormwater but also adds visible commu-
and Community Assets nity amenities. The Seattle Green Factor was originally
In Seattle, as with most communities around the Puget Sound, developed for commercial cores and requires that property
the primary motivation for new stormwater management owners achieve 30 percent parcel vegetation using a defined
methods lies in protecting aquatic biota and creek channels set of weighted practices including green roofs, permeable
as well as improving overall water quality. Coho salmon paving and green walls that are highly visible. This weighted
system reflects Seattle’s emphasis on a range of benefits for
the environment and for the community.
  Seattle Green Factor: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Permits/GreenFactor/Overview/
1

Case Study—Seattle, WA
61
Stormwater Code ●. Rainwise.Incentive.Program

In.the.past.five.years,.SPU.has.revised.the.City’s. ●. NPDES.Phase.I.imposed.by.Ecology.such.as.flow.control.
Comprehensive.Drainage.Plan.to.address.flooding.and.water. requirements.for.small.site.developments.and.accompa-
quality.needs.through.green.infrastructure.source.controls.and. nying.flow.control.technical.manual.
to.establish.a.long-term.schedule.of.both.capital.improve-
ment.and.operating.programs..The.City.of.Seattle’s.existing.
The.High.Point.redevelopment.provides.guidelines.for.
Stormwater,.Grading.and.Drainage.Control.Code.provides.
future.construction.of.publicly-.and.privately-funded.homes.
guidance.for.flow.control.and.water.quality.treatment.using.
that.encourage.sustainable.design.approaches..Using.a.
green.infrastructure.practices..
performance-based.approach,.the.design.meets.the.needs.
of.the.client.and.infrastructure.stakeholders,.and.serves.an.
In.the.past,.Seattle.has.enjoyed.support.from.the.development.
ecological.function..Most.importantly,.the.High.Point.model.
community.because.State.requirements.were.so.strict.that.they.
challenges.beliefs.that.dense.urban.design.and.ecological.
wanted.cheaper.ways.to.meet.standards.and.found.that.green.
performance.are.mutually.exclusive..The.City.stormwater.
infrastructure.offered.cost.savings,.often.through.avoided.
code.and.the.High.Point.redevelopment.project.confirm.
gray.infrastructure.investments..However,.Washington.State’s.
Seattle’s.environmental.commitment.for.sustainable.develop-
Ecology.Department.has.recently.updated.the.state.NPDES.
ment.to.maintain.a.high.quality.of.life.
permit.to.require.the.use.of.practices.that.manage.stormwater.
on.site.and.limit.on-site.imperviousness.. 2) Roads

1) Redevelopment Recognizing.the.contribution.that.streets.make.to.overall.
imperviousness,.the.City.of.Seattle.focuses.considerable.staff.
Seattle.is.in.the.process.of.revising.and.updating.the.
and.resources.to.its.NDS.Program..The.central.goals.of.an.
Stormwater.Codes.and.Manuals.that.address.new.and.redevel-
NDS.as.an.innovative.approach.to.street.design.are.to.protect.
opments..This.update.coincides.with.the.new.NPDES.Phase.I.
aquatic.organisms,.protect.creek.channels.and.improve.water.
permit.and.requirement.by.the.Washington.State.Department.
quality.by.slowing.the.flow.and.reducing.the.volume.of.
of.Ecology.to.comply.with.their.statewide.manual.for.
stormwater.runoff...By.retrofitting.and.redeveloping.public.
developers..The.new.code.will.require.an.analysis.of.green.
rights-of-way.to.mimic.predevelopment.hydrologic.processes,.
infrastructure.as.a.first.evaluation.in.site.design.for.all.new.
projects.like.SEA.Streets.and.High.Point.collect.runoff.from.
and.redevelopment.plans..A.fee-in-lieu.policy.is.incorporated.
nearby.streets,.roofs.and.other.impervious.surfaces.to.store.
into.this.code.revision.that.will.allow.developers.to.pay.a.
and.treat.it.through.vegetated.systems.
fee.in.place.of.using.detention.vaults.for.flow.control..The.
fee.amount.is.determined.through.the.normal.cost.evaluation. 3) Retrofits
methods.for.sizing.vaults..SPU.intends.to.use.income.from. Rainwise Incentives Program
these.fees.for.specific.basin.restoration.or.for.salmon-bearing.
Much.of.Seattle’s.land.area.is.privately-owned.properties.
creeks,.as.well.as.for.incorporating.green.infrastructure.prac-
that.contribute.to.water.quality,.flow.control.and.convey-
tices.into.major.capital.improvement.programs...
ance.issues..Runoff.from.residences.and.businesses.results.
in.degraded.watersheds.or.flooding.problems.downstream,.
With.assistance.from.the.consulting.firm.Herrera,.SPU.has.
where.SPU.invests.in.capital.project.solutions..The.Rainwise.
identified.key.steps.to.creating.new.policies.and.materials.for.
Incentive.Program.is.a.customer.stewardship.program.to.
the.following.areas.of.stormwater.management.responsibility:.
encourage.private.property.owners.to.manage.stormwater.
●. Source.Control.Manual
flows.on.site.2.Through.educational.materials.and.low.cost.
incentives,.such.as.guides,.workshops.and.discounted.utility.
●. Stormwater,.Grading.and.Drainage.Control.Code

●. Flow.Control.Manual 2
  RainWise Incentive Program: https://rainwise.seattle.gov/systems/water

62 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
costs, SPU hopes to see customers using on-site management along the waterfront in downtown Seattle. The Washington
techniques, as listed below, to protect both public infrastruc- Department of Transportation (WDOT) is responsible
ture and the environment: for a new plan to replace the existing highway structure.
Despite no current plans for the Viaduct’s retrofit, the Seattle
●● Rainwater cistern Department of Planning and Development (DPD) will be
working with WDOT to include low-impact development
●● Downspout disconnect
features as part of this multi-billion dollar capital improve-
●● Rain garden ment project. Another major project is the 520 Floating
Bridge over Lake Washington, which costs more than $1
●● Rock-filled trench billion. Demand Management, which is a component of
Asset Management approach, incorporates LID into all
●● Porous pavement
these other CIP Projects. Rick Johnson with Seattle DPD is
●● Trees currently working on a document to package how LID can
be incorporated into all these bigger projects.
●● Compost and mulch.
Imlementation
SPU is also investing in a Roadside Raingarden project and As stated on SPU’s Web site, “NDS cost about 10 to 20
providing residential incentives for rain gardens and cisterns percent less than traditional street redevelopment with curb,
in the Ballard neighborhood.3 gutter, catch basins, asphalt, and sidewalks,” in large part
because SPU was improving “chip and seal” streets that
4) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects
lacked underground infrastructure. For more developed parts
The City of Seattle makes a clear connection between the of town within the combined sewer area, total costs are not
use of green infrastructure for stormwater management and as predictable.
overall asset and demand management for all SPU sewer
and drainage systems. Most major capital projects within NDS projects include SEA Streets, the Broadview Green Grid
the City, even managed by other agencies, include consid- Project, 110th Cascade Project, Pinehurst Green Grid Project
eration for incorporating low-impact development (LID) and High Point Project in West Seattle. The great achieve-
and thereby gaining the multiple benefits afforded to SPU’s ment of these projects was finding a way to implement LID
assets, regional environmental quality and quality of life for into street rights-of-way and reduce overall imperviousness of
Seattle residents. roadways. Most of these projects are located in the northern
neighborhoods of Seattle, which is much less dense than
SPU’s specific asset management approach enables the utility downtown portions of the City.
to meet agreed-upon customer and environmental service
levels at the lowest cost, considering full life-cycle costs, by The next phase of demonstration and monitoring will be an
investing in maintaining and replacing its multi-billion dollar extensive project to minimize downtown parking spaces and
infrastructure. Although conventional methods for managing test the application of green infrastructure in an ultra-urban
stormwater can be readily calculated for costs, benefits and setting with a combination of green roofs, right-of-way appli-
risks, natural drainage designs with vegetation are still being cation and methods to treat and release stormwater.
considered to relieve traditional systems, despite less predict-
ability for cost-benefit analyses.

An example of LID in CIP projects is the Alaska Way

Viaduct Project. The Viaduct is an elevated highway retrofit

  Ballard Roadside Raingardens: http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/

3

Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Plans/CombinedSewerOverflowReductionPlan/
BallardRoadsideRaingardens/index.htm

Case Study—Seattle, WA
63
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Stafford County, Virginia CASE STUDY

Overview in a community have helped Stafford County build support

for a stormwater management and overall drainage system
Stafford County, Virginia, is located in the Metropolitan
that encourages the use of natural systems.
Washington DC Region and has experienced an estimated 30
percent population increase from 2000 to 2007. This fast-
In addition, Stafford County’s stormwater program is
growing County faces the challenge of new residential and
responsible for complying with the Virginia Stormwater
commercial development that creates additional runoff from
Management Regulations and must also meet the require-
roads, parking lots and roof tops. The Stafford County Public
ments of the County’s Phase II NPDES permit. The Virginia
Works Department is responsible for complying with National
Department of Conservation and Recreation controls how
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
stormwater is managed on state and federal property, but
The NPDES first introduced on-site green infrastructure, or
allows localities, including counties, the option to establish
low-impact development practices, as an option for meeting
a locally-appropriate stormwater management program for
stormwater requirements on new developments. After success
private properties. Although streets and other land uses can
and experience implementing green infrastructure through
contribute large amounts of impervious surfaces, the state
voluntary measures, Stafford County then included green
controls subdivision ordinances, as well as street runoff and
infrastructure practices, to the maximum extent practicable,
road width requirements. As a result, the County largely
on all new developments. Stafford County does not have
focuses on encouraging and requiring private property owners
complete jurisdiction over local subdivision ordinances
to use natural drainage systems to minimize impervious
or street right-of-way design standards, and is therefore
surfaces and manage runoff.
limited in the types of impervious surfaces they can impact
through code and ordinance updates. The County focuses
instead on areas where it does have authority, such as adding
green infrastructure on County-owned land and reaching
out to existing property owners and developers to educate
them on green infrastructure practices for meeting local
stormwater requirements.

Drivers
Stafford County’s efforts to incorporate green infrastructure
countywide are motivated by a mix of flooding concerns and
water quality protection needs. The County is responsible
for protecting residential and business properties from flood
damage. Past flood events have led to a greater concern with
standing water, high water in ditches and on roads and other
negative impacts from large amounts of stormwater runoff. Figure 1: Bioretention areas, like the one in this parking lot, are commonly
This greater awareness of the role and impact of stormwater used in Stafford County to meet local stormwater requirements.

Case Study—Stafford County, VA

65
Policies
While many communities similar to Stafford County have
only recommended or allowed the use of green infrastructure
practices, such as bioretention and permeable pavements, in
2003, Stafford County began requiring on-site approaches
that are supported by local development ordinances, manage-
ment agreements, design and construction guidelines and
public outreach and education material. This full set of policy
approaches has enabled the County to ensure greater imple-
mentation and compliance with the stormwater code.

Figure 2: A rain garden in Stafford County, Virginia, limits runoff that

Stafford County worked with multiple stakeholders in
leaves the site and enters nearby streams.
developing its ordinances. County staff worked with a
local conservation nonprofit, Friends of Rappahannock, to
has become the commonly accepted method, and might offer
hold a roundtable on better site design, which resulted in a
greater assurance of plan approval for developers.
committee to update the stormwater code. The committee
included several state agency representatives, including staff
Homeowners in Stafford County are also retrofitting existing
from the Virginia Department of Transportation, local devel-
yards with rain gardens. Many houses in Stafford have
opers, and representatives from Friends of the Rappahannock.
one to three lots and can more easily design and imple-
This process resulted in a new stormwater ordinance and
ment rain gardens to manage runoff from roofs, driveways
a design manual that was approved by the County Council
and sidewalks.
in 2003, and included requirements for using low-impact
development on private lots, relaxed regulations for curbs and
In 2004, Stafford County retrofitted the Stafford County
gutters in all new subdivisions and an allowance for low-
Administration Center parking lot to include bioretention
impact development practices to meet county landscaping
to manage impervious surface runoff. The retrofit added
requirements. In addition, stormwater management concept
water quality treatment measures and provided an important
plans are now required to be approved much earlier in the
publicly-funded demonstration for developers and citizens.
larger plan and design process. These actions combine to form
a comprehensive set of rules and guidance that private devel-
opers and landowners can use to incorporate natural systems
to reduce runoff and manage stormwater on site.

Implementation
The County has found that almost 95 percent of developers
are using bioretention, including rain gardens, as the primary
method of on-site management to meet the stormwater
requirements. The widespread use of a single practice may
be due to the fact that bioretention design is perceived to be
easier to technically justify as meeting impervious surface
management requirements than other methods. In addition, it

66 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Green Infrastructure
Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure

Wilsonville, Oregon CASE STUDY

Overview the stage for improved management approaches that would

provide multiple benefits across city departments and to the
Wilsonville, Oregon, is located along the Willamette River
general public.
at the southern edge of the Portland metropolitan area. The
population of Wilsonville is around 17,000 and has experi-
Green infrastructure projects are prioritized in Wilsonville’s
enced rapid growth in the last 10 years. Most of the City of
Stormwater Master Plan because they can provide multiple
Wilsonville lies within the Portland Metro Urban Growth
benefits for pollutant treatment, flow control, groundwater
Boundary,1 which limits development on farm and forest land
recharge and landscaping for aesthetic improvements. Local
and supports efficient use of land, infrastructure and services
capital investments emphasize projects to restore streams and
within existing urban areas.
protect or enhance wetlands and buffer areas. Other capital
projects within the Master Plan focus on retrofitting existing
Wilsonville’s land use and stormwater management poli-
impervious surfaces such as streets and parking lots to include
cies work together to balance increased density of land use
vegetated practices that infiltrate runoff on site.
with natural resource protection. The City initiated its green
infrastructure efforts by working with private development
projects to test the construction and performance of green
infrastructure practices, along with the feasibility of requiring
and enforcing on-site management practices like permeable
pavers, ecoroofs and bioswales. Wilsonville built on initial
lessons and now incorporates green infrastructure approaches
into capital projects and a range of other codes and ordinances
that apply to new development projects.

Drivers
Wilsonville’s green infrastructure planning and projects came
in the context of Portland Metro’s long-standing support and
outreach about the value of open space preservation, smart
growth and green streets for balancing environmental and
community development goals. Wilsonville was also moti- Figure 1: The City of Wilsonville worked with developers to monitor the
vated largely by a need to update and revise the outdated performance of new green infrastructure techniques, like this planter box,
before establishing development standards for on-site management.
comprehensive plan, including future urban expansion and
stormwater system needs. Furthermore, financial analyses
on the costs of new stormwater infrastructure, as well as on Pilot Project
meeting state and federal Clean Water Act requirements, set When the City began plans in the 1990s to redevelop a nearly
500-acre property into a mixed-use village center called
Villebois, city staff recognized that the codes and infrastruc-
  Portland Metro Council: http://www.metro-region.org/
1 ture plans created for this large site could be a testing ground

Case Study—Wilsonville, OR
67
for future development code changes that apply citywide.
Before the City finalized design requirements for the full
development, the pre-project phase required the developer
to monitor, test and analyze the effectiveness of site-scale
green infrastructure, including porous pavement, bioreten-
tion cells and ecoroofs. This testing period also allowed city
staff to figure out how well new stormwater management
requirements could be integrated with existing city and state
development codes. The pilot process resulted in updated
stormwater requirements that emphasized decentralized
management and that integrated well with transportation,
natural resources and parks and open space plans.

Policies
Natural Resource Protection
Figure 2: Decentralized stormwater management features, such as this
In 2010, the City adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan bioretention area in the Villebois project, collect runoff from rooftops, side-
walks, and yards for infiltration into the ground below.
that outlines measures to protect natural areas and introduce
new green infrastructure elements on development and retrofit
Capital Projects
sites. The 2010 Plan explicitly prioritizes the need to limit
the negative impacts new developments might have on local System development charges and user fees are collected to
water quality. The Plan emphasizes measures that improve implement the Stormwater Master Plan, which identifies
ground water infiltration, add habitat value and provide other key capital improvement projects that improve stormwater
benefits to community aesthetics: quality and control the volume of runoff. Wilsonville requires
developers to pay a stormwater system development fee
●● Naturaldrainage systems, including streams and creeks, before being issued a building permit. The revenues from
must be preserved as open space to serve as primary this development charge are used to implement large-scale
elements in the overall urban drainage system. This capital projects, such as stream restorations or green street
includes protection against burying current natural curb extensions. These capital investments support the overall
drainage systems into underground culverts or pipes. natural drainage throughout the community.

●● Streams,swales and other open drainage systems can be Implementation

used to meet landscaping and open space requirements for
Wilsonville protects functional open space at the community
new developments.
scale and introduces new green infrastructure at the smaller
●● Existingunderground drainage ways must be restored or site scale. The City directs development charge revenues
daylighted to surface streams. toward capital improvement projects that protect healthy
waterways and restore degraded streams. At the same time,
●● Site
development plans must preserve or improve native Wilsonville created development requirements, with the
vegetation in identified riparian zones and landslide-prone private sector as a key partner, which resulted in regulations
areas to mitigate runoff. that are achievable, transparent and effective at comple-
●● Restoration
menting large scale protections with site-level runoff mitiga-
of vegetation, including the removal of inva-
tion and management.
sive plants, may also be required depending on the type,
scale and location of development.

68 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
Acknowledgements
This is a project of the Nonpoint Source Program within EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Abby Hall is the
principal author.

Case Study Interviewees:

1. Denise Andrews, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington
2. Janet Attarian, Department of Transportation, Chicago, Illinois
3. Michael Beezhold, Department of Public Works, Lenexa, Kansas
4. Jill Bicknell, EOA, Inc., Oakland, California
5. Joyce Coffee, Department of Environment, Chicago, Illinois
6. Chris Crockett, Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7. Joanne Dahme, Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
8. Ignacio Dayritt, Redevelopment Agency, Emeryville, California
9. Craig Doberstein, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington
10. Linda Dobson, Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon
11. Dionne Early, City of San Jose, California
12. Barry Fitz, Department of Public Works, Stafford County, Virginia
13. Andy Haub, Public Works Department, Olympia, Washington
14. Stephen Hofstetter, Environmental Protection Department, Alachua County, Florida
15. Steven Hubble, Department of Public Works, Stafford County, Virginia
16. Tom Jacobs, Mid-America Regional Council, Kansas City, Missouri
17. Rick Johnson, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington
18. Diana Keena, Planning Division, Emeryville, California
19. David Leopold, Department of Transportation, Chicago, Illinois
20. Lisa Libby, Planning and Sustainability Director, Office of Mayor Sam Adams, Portland, Oregon
21. Dick Lilly, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington
22. Tom Liptan, Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon
23. Peter Mulvaney, Department of Water Management, Chicago, Illinois
24. Howard Neukrug, Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
25. Kerry Rappold, Natural Resources Program, Wilsonville, Oregon
26. Peter Schultze-Allen, Environmental Services, Emeryville, California
27. Neal Shapiro, City of Santa Monica, California
28. Dan Vizzini, Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon

Reviewers:
1. Nancy Arazan, U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
2. Paula Estornell, U.S. EPA Region 3 Brownfields and Land Revitalization
3. Robert Goo, U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
4. Jamal Kadri, U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
5. Chris Kloss, Low Impact Development Center
6. Jennifer Molloy, U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management

Acknowledgements
69
7. Kol Peterson, U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation
8. Nancy Stoner, Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC) Clean Water Project
9. Tracy Tackett, Seattle Public Utilities
10. Dov Weitman, U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
11. Clark Wilson, U.S. EPA Development, Community and Environment Division

70 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure
 Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper

with a minimum 50% post-consumer waste
using vegetable-based inks.

72 Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure