blue cities guide: environmentally sensitive urban development

8/9/2019 Blue Cities Guide: Environmentally Sensitive Urban Development

1/40

Produced by Charles River Watershed Associationwith support from

The Boston Foundation&

Cabot Family Charitable Trust

BLUE CITIES GUIDE:

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE

URBAN

DEVELOPMENT


2/40

Mappingsupportprovidedby:

ESRIandtheESRILogoarelicensed

trademarksofEnvironmentalSystems

ResearchInstitute,Inc.

BostonWaterandSewerCommissionAllBWSCDataCopyright(c)1998bytheBostonWaterandSewer

Commission.Allrightsreserved.TheBostonWaterandSewerCommission

makesnoclaimsastothereliabilityofthesedataorastotheimpliedvalidityof

anyusesofthesedata.


3/40

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION: BUILDING BLUE CITIES.....................................................................3

CASE STUDIES:NORTH ALLSTON........................................................................................................4

ZAKIM NORTH AREA................................................................................................15LONGWOOD MEDICAL AND ACADEMIC AREA..................................................25

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED.......................................................................34

GLOSSARY OF TERMS.........................................................................................................36

A TEMPLATE FOR BLUE CITIES RESTORATION...........................................................37

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (available upon request and at www.charlesriver.org) APPENDIX A: WINSLAMM MODELING FOR CASE STUDIES APPENDIX B: URBAN LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT

PRACTICE MATRICES AND INFORMATION SHEETS APPENDIX C: CRWA EDUCATIONAL BROCHURES - WATER PRIMER AND

PHOSPHORUS FACTS

Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks and sustainable printing methods


4/40

Mark Garfinkel Boston Herald

2


5/40

Introduction:Building Blue Cities: Water in Urban Development

With 80% of the United States popu-lation now living in cities, urban en-vironmental challenges air quality,energy consumption, transportationneeds are widely recognized. ThisGuide focuses on a less publicized is-

sue that is likely to prove the mostcritical of all: water resource failure,and what can be done about it.

Many U.S. cities face water-relateddisasters. Clean water supplies arebecoming scarce; flood damage is widespread; wa-ter tables are unstable; rivers, lakes, and ponds arepolluted; crumbling sewer and drain infrastructuredemands repair. Fortunately, a convergence of newtechnologies and a growing interest in urban revi-talization makes it possible to rethink urban watermanagement and apply solutions to make our cit-ies more sustainable.

Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) hasdeveloped a suite of tools and an approach to theurban environment that will help create a new kindof place: a Blue City. Bringing together techniquessuch as Low Impact Development (LID), GreenBuildings, Green Infrastructure, Green Corridors,and stormwater management, the Blue Cities ap-proach provides a way to solve problems and builda sustainable urban future. Using water as a foun-dation for planning and design leads to a wholehost of benefits: more pleasant streets; integratedpublic open space; a cleaner, more accessible river;and infrastructure that is flexible and resilient.

New England receives over 40 inches of rainfall a

year on average. Properly managed, this water cancool buildings (directly and through strategically-used vegetation), improve air quality, add aestheticamenities, reduce flooding, and relieve drought.By restoring natural hydrologic function, BlueCities initiatives can improve human and aquaticecosystems. We can redesign our cities to capture

and cleanse water and convey it to rivers, lakes,and harbors gradually through natural, vegetatedchannels.

Blue Development incorporates designs for thebuilt environment that engage with every stageof the water cycle. It identifies critical watershedproblems, finds potential solutions, and brings peo-ple together to support restoration efforts. Blue

Development is a new paradigm for the urban en-vironment, solving problems with techniques thatimprove todays environment, and protect tomor-rows.

THE BLUE CITIES GUIDE

The Blue Cities Guide offers a comprehensive ap-proach for addressing problems typical of mosturban water environments. Flooding, decliningbase flows in streams, groundwater recession, wa-ter quality violations, eutrophication, build-up ofcontaminated sediments, loss of habitat and recre-ational opportunities, polluted stormwater runoff,

combined sewer overflows, and excessive thermalloading are persistent examples. The overarchinggoal is to let the urban watershed function like anatural watershed - collecting rainfall, filtering itthrough plants and soils, storing it for dry seasons,and releasing it, clean and cool, to the river.

When policy and design innovations converge torestore natural water function in the built environ-ment, water quality improves, flooding is mitigatedor eliminated, habitat is restored, groundwater re-charge is unimpeded, and beautiful, safe networksof pedestrian corridors and open space can be builtand sustained. In Boston, water-sensitivity in ar-chitecture, landscape design, and civil engineer-

ing is already improving the health of the CharlesRiver and surrounding neighborhoods.

This Guide presents three case studies, each ofwhich helped CRWA develop the comprehensiveBlue Cities approach. While every place has itsown site-specific needs and potential, this Guide

establishes a consistent frameworkfor analysis, understanding and ad-vocacy. The Template for Blue Cit-ies Restoration (page 37) lays outthe process in its simplest terms.

CASE STUDIES

In 2005, the Charles River Wa-tershed Association embarked onan ambitious three-year projectto explore in detail opportunities

for redesigning densely developed urban areaswith a focus on water. The studies concentratedon three diverse critical areas: the North Allstonneighborhood in Boston, where Harvard Univer-sity is building a new, 200-plus acre campus; theLongwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA),also in Boston, on the banks of the Muddy Riverand Back Bay Fens; and Zakim North, a mixedresidential and industrial neighborhood in Boston,

Cambridge, and Somerville, already undergoingdramatic transformation through redevelopment.

Despite the differences among the sites size, pop-ulation, land use, infrastructure, environmentalproblems, and development pressures our fun-damental approach includes consistent elements.We chose the sites to be large enough, in size andscope, to demonstrate environmental improve-ments on a neighborhood scale, but small enoughto make it possible to track solutions in detail atbuilding- and site-scale. In all cases, we analyzeproblems; integrate the regulatory and planningcontexts; address the concerns of residents andstakeholders; and identify, develop, and evaluate

design opportunities.

Our case sites differ in development agendas, plan-ning timeframes, and regulatory frameworks. Butall three reflect classic problems of impaired hy-drology. Our proposed solutions, therefore, havebroad applicability.

Using water as a foundation

for planning and design leads

to a whole host of benefits:

more pleasant streets;

integrated public open space;

a cleaner, more

accessible river; and

infrastructure that is flexibleand resilient.

Erosion along the Charles River in North Allston Stormwater problems in the Zakim North areaLitter in a stream in the Longwood Medical Area


6/40

Harvard Universitys 50-year project to develop anew campus on more than 200 acres in North All-ston, a neighborhood of Boston that borders theCharles River, presents an opportunity to trans-form the area from a deteriorating, environmen-

tally degraded condition into a model of environ-mentally sensitive, water friendly development.This major urban redevelopment project presents

tremendous opportunities to improve the physi-cal environment, reversing degradation and pollu-tion, and changing current development practicesthrough an environmentally sensitive approach toplanning. When urban redevelopment incorpo-

rates environmental restoration, the proven eco-nomic and aesthetic benefits generate widespreadpublic support. CRWAs goal is to ensure that ma-jor infrastructure improvements to the water andsewer systems, transportation systems, open spaceand pedestrian amenities, and the urban ecosystemare incorporated into large-scale urban redevelop-ment projects like Harvards new campus i n NorthAllston.

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Historical evolution and current site analysis

The Charles River borders North Allston on threesides. Much of the area was historically a tidalmarsh, which was gradually drained and filled asthe city expanded in the 1800s (see Figure 1.1).Today, North Allstons former creeks and wetlandsare completely buried. The natural legacy of the

former marsh remains, however,and poor drainage and unstableriver banks present constant chal-lenges.

CRWAs existing conditions analysisidentified additional environmentalissues, including lack of open spaceand street trees, poor connectivityto the river and riverfront parks,and limited access via public trans-portation. We also found a numberof water-related problems, in par-ticular street flooding, park erosion,polluted discharges to the CharlesRiver, overloading of combinedsewer systems, and stormwater run-

off and reduced infiltration created by imperviousareas. These problems can be traced directly to theareas natural history, development patterns, andinfrastructure design.

Identification of issues and opportunities andfield verification

In North Allston, as in most urban communi-

ties, the man-made (built) infrastructure wasdeveloped without much attention to preservinga functional relationship between land and wa-ter. Natural drainage systems were eliminated andhistoric tidal areas (saltwater marshes) were filled,reducing natural infiltration, altering groundwa-ter flow patterns, and creating a large volume of

polluted stormwater runoff. The infrastructure -roads, buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, etc. - wasdesigned without regard to preexisting hydrology.Rainfall and groundwater were treated as a nui-sance, to be managed with engineering. As Allston

continued to grow, the basic problems inherentin the engineered hydrologic cycle became moreand more severe: flooding, pollution, groundwaterfluctuations, and riverbank instability are all is-sues we identified in the area. The increase in theamount and rate of runoff has already deprivedAllston of at least two acres of parkland by erodingthe riverbank (See Fig 1.3).

Case Study - North Allston

Since its origins in the early 17th century as an ag-

ricultural and cattle-raising outpost of Cambridge,

the area has witnessed intense transformations:

from a market town and center for the beef indus-

try; to a streetcar suburb built along Western Av-

enue, which continues to serve as North Allstons

Main Street; to a major rail transportation center,

vestiges of which are visible today in the Allston

Yards; to textile factories once located where the

Brighton Mills shopping center now sits; to the

small- and medium-sized industrial businesses

scattered through the neighborhood.

- North Allston Strategic Planning Framework

issued by Boston Redevelopment Authority,

June 2004

4

Fig. 1.1 Historic map circa 1875 (Courtesy Brighton Allston Historical Society)

Fig. 1.2 Street flooding and puddling in North Allston

Fig. 1.3 Increased stormwater resulting in riverbank erosion


7/40

Plate 1.1 Analytical Mapping of Sub-watersheds in North Allston


8/40

6

"?B"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B"?B"?B"?B"?B"?B

"?B"?B"?B"?B"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B"?B "?B"?B"?B"?B

"?B"?B

"?B"?B"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B

"?B"?B"?B

"?B

"?B "?B

"?B "?B"?B"?B "?B"?B "?B"?B "?B"?B"?B

!.

!.!.

!.

N o r t h A l l s t o n P r o j e c t A r e aD r a i n i n g t o B o s t o n W a t e r a n d S e w e r C o m m i s s i o n S t o r m wa t e r O u t f a l l # 2 6 G S D O 0 1N o r t h A l l s t o n P r o j e c t A r e aD r a i n i n g t o B o s t o n W a t e r a n d S e w e r C o m m i s s i o n S t o r m wa t e r O u t f a l l # 2 6 G S D O 0 1

O0 500 1,000250

Feet

L e g e n dL e g e n dBWSC StormwaterLines

PipeSize

< 10

10 - 12

13 - 16

18 - 22

24 - 28

29 - 35

36 - 41

>= 42

!. BWSC Stormwater Outfalls

"?B BWSC Catch Basins

Engineered Watershed

Parking

Building Footprints

Impervious Area

Source D

Plate 1.2 Existing Conditions Analysis & Sub-watershed Modeling

Figure 1.2.3 WinSLAMM outputs for existing conditions categorizing by land use (commercial, industrial, institutional and residential) within the Allston Creek sub-watershed

Figure 1.2.1 WinSLAMM land use areas Figure 1.2.2 Impervious areas mapping in the Allston Creek sub-watershed


9/40

Analytical mapping and sub-watershedmodeling

CRWA selected one major sub-watershed in NorthAllston for detailed analysis and design (see Plate1.1). The Allston Creek sub-watershed in theNorth Allston area of Boston (see Plate 1.2) is de-

fined by the Boston Water and Sewer Commission(BWSC) engineered drainage system, which entersthe Charles River at the outfall 26G001.

The sub-watershed area is approximately 146 acres,45% of which is residential, 30% institutional(Harvard-owned property), 8% commercial, 11%industrial, 5% freeway, and 1% other, whichcaptures the Open Land polygon displayed inFig. 1.2.1.

CRWA used the WinSLAMM model to simulatethe sites hydrology under existing conditions, as well as under potential future conditions (referto Appendix A for details regarding the modeling

process). The existing conditions model was runwith the site area classified as industrial, which typ-ically has higher pollutant loadings from industrialprocesses and more intensive land-uses than areasclassified as institutional (see Plate 1.2 for existingconditions outputs).

PLANNING CONTEXT ANDSTAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

Planning background and existingregulatory framework

North Allston will be dramatically re-shaped by the expansion and redevelop-ment of Harvard Universitys campus. Nu-

merous planning and regulatory processesare under way, many of which CRWA hasparticipated in to ensure a broad focus onwater-sensitive design and environmentalrestoration.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority(BRA) reviews development projects inthe City of Boston and creates neighbor-

hood planning documents that prescribe land use,zoning, and other planning and design criteria fordevelopment in various neighborhoods withinthe City. The Allston-Brighton neighborhood lieswithin its sphere of authority. In 1996 the BRAundertook a four-year planning process to create

the North Allston Strategic Planning Frameworkwith the assistance of the North Allston PlanningGroup. This group consisted of members of theHarvard University Allston Campus Task Force,representing residents, community organizations,and businesses, along with other community inter-ests and representatives from the University.

Harvard Allston Task ForceIn 2006, when Harvard initiated its planning forupdating its Institutional Master Plan (IMP), theBRA reconstituted the Harvard Allston Task Force.This group has since undertaken an extensive re-view process to ensure that the resident commu-nity and other stakeholders play a meaningful role

in evaluating the IMP. The Allston DevelopmentGroup (ADG) is leading the planning effort on be-half of Harvard.

Citizen Advisory CommitteeIn late 2007, the state Secretary of Environmen-tal Affairs appointed CRWA to the newly-created

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for HarvardUniversi tys Allston Campus IMP. CRWA is oneof four CAC members not from the BRAs TaskForce, and the only CAC member with environ-mental expertise. CRWA will play an active role instate environmental review of the IMP through theMassachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)process both in our role on the CAC and as anindependent advocacy organization.

Building relationships and working withstakeholders

CRWA has been working directly with HarvardUniversity, local environmental groups, neighbor-hood groups, the City of Boston, and various Stateagencies as Harvards campus planning process un-folds. We have developed partnerships with a rangeof stakeholders involved with the planning processand are working with each one of them to furtherthe goal of environmental sustainability.

Harvard University:CRWA has worked directly with ADG and Har-

vards planning and design team on the Universityscurrent water management programs and futureplans for incorporating specific sustainability prac-tices for managing water resources on a campus- wide scale. Through periodic meetings, we havebeen able to influence decision-making and identi-fy numerous shared goals. CRWA adopted a set ofprinciples to govern ADGs approach to environ-mental restoration. Our goal is for ADG to adopta set of urban restoration guidelines that will inte-grate sustainable water management and design asa part of the IMP. In addition to engaging formallywith the ADG and the project consultants, CRWAis working with the Harvard Green Campus Initia-tive, which has s upported our goals and presented

our work to the staff at the Center for Health andGlobal Environment and to faculty and students atthe Harvard Design School.

City of Boston:Working primarily with the BRA and the BostonEnvironment Department (BED), CRWA has be-

gun to integrate planning for water resources withthe Citys Green Building campaign. CRWA is aregular participant in the biweekly Harvard All-ston Task Force meetings organized by the BRAto review Harvard plans as they evolve, and is a

REGULATORY AGENCIES, PUBLIC

LANDOWNERS & STAKEHOLDERS

(WITH ABBREVIATIONS)

Harvard University:

Allston Development Group (ADG)

Harvard Green Campus Initiative (HGCI)

Center for Health and Global Environment

Harvard Graduate School of Design

City of Boston Agencies

Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA)

Boston Environment Department (BED)

Boston Transportation Department (BTD)

Boston Water and Sewer Commission

(BWSC)

Massachusetts State Agencies:

Department of Conservation and Recreation

(DCR)

Executive Ofce of Environment and Energy

Affairs (EOEEA)

Neighborhood Groups:

Allston Civic Association (ACA)

Allston Brighton Community Development

Cooperation (ABCDC)

Allston Brighton Green Space Advocates(ABGSA)

Fig. 1.4 Limited pedestrian access to parklands in North Allston

Fig 1.5 CRWAs Blue Cities Forum in North Allston


10/40

part of its subcommittee on open space and publicrealm improvements. Given that the BRA reviewprocesses will guide Harvards expansion, we seesignificant potential to leverage Blue Developmentas a means to achieve water-friendly buildings and

neighborhoods.

State Agencies andDepartments:The MA Departmentof Conservation andRecreation (DCR)owns and manages alarge part of the parksystem on the Charles.CRWA is therefore

working with DCR toensure that all poten-tial issues and oppor-tunities for open spacerestoration and publicrealm improvementsare addressed. Publicaccess, the protectionof viewsheds, andplanning for capitalimprovements and

maintenance are all vital issues in this process.CRWA will play an active role in state environ-mental review of the IMP through the MEPA pro-cess both in our role on the CAC and as an inde-

pendent advocacy organization.

Neighborhood groups:Through participation in ongoing neighborhoodmeetings, CRWA has been drawing substantialattention to the North Allston neighborhoodsenvironmental needs, emphasizing the connec-tions between water resources and open space.In addition to coordinating with the Task Forceinvolved in the IMP process, CRWA is workingclosely with the Allston Brighton Green Space Ad-vocates (ABGSA) to discuss issues of open spaceplanning and design and public realm improve-ments in the neighborhood. CRWA has partneredwith Allston Brighton Community Development

Corporation and the National Parks Services on aninitiative called Green Space Connections, for-mally launched in February of 2006 (Figure 1.6).We have worked with this group to build supportfor its efforts to green streets and interconnect vari-ous open spaces in the Allston Brighton neighbor-hood, and to strengthen residents understanding

of water in the urban context.

Stakeholder education and involvement

CRWA has hosted numerous public forums on en-vironmental issues in the Harvard Allston campusneighborhood. We have invited various stakehold-er groups to participate as a way to engage them inthe process. The primary goal of these forums is tobuild local awareness of environmental issues and

of opportunities to link improvements to larger-scale, regional infrastructure and the park systemwith the Harvard Allston campus development. Inaddition to coordinating with various state agen-cies on this in itiative, CRWA has also been workingwith the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energyand Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) and Coastal

Zone Management on incorporating Low ImpactDevelopment (LID) Best Management Practicesin retrofitting an urban area li ke North Allston.

PROJECT GOALS AND VISION FORRESTORATION

Sub-watershed restoration goals and priorities

The primary goal of the project is to assess ways

in which the development of Harvards new cam-pus can bring significant environmental improve-ments to North Allston and to support a broadand inclusive process for evaluating environmentalimprovements. The project aims to identify res-toration approaches that will restore hydrologicintegrity by incorporating green infrastructure

OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC REALM RESTORATION GOALS

Public access to Charles River

Enhance access both visual and physical to the Charles River from the residential neighborhoods

and other parts of the community.

Ensure that any new academic and other development will not wall off the river from the neighbor-

hood physically or visually.

Create greenways or non-linear open space corridors with pathways for pedestrian, wheelchair and

bicycle access that will provide clear public access and include way nding signs which make clear

that the river is publicly accessible through the campus.

Preserve existing open space and create new parks

Expand the limited number of neighborhood parks by creating new parks and i mproving access to

Smith Field.

Preserve existing urban wilds and create new usable open space (such as pocket parks or commu-

nity gardens) through greening existing hard-scaped lots and under utilized parcels

Improve access to and condition of existing open spaces to make them more user friendly (active and

passive uses) and ecologically functional (landscape retrots)

Enhance parkland all along the river in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Conser-

vation and Recreation, and retrot sections on the riverfront area to reduce/minimize erosion and

improve water quality/habitat values.

Green Streets and other public realm improvements

Retrot key neighborhood streets with Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to alleviate ooding

in the neighborhood and improve streetscape environment.

Use vegetation and signage to help establish gateways, connections and nodes of pedestrian activity,

and to reinforce North Allstons sense of place.

Convert Western Avenue into an amenity-rich, pedestrian-friendly commercial district, withstreetscape designs and improvements that reect these new uses.

Green parking lots and retrot other hard-scaped areas with green infrastructure best management

practices.RESTORATION GOALS

Sub-watershed level:

Mimic natural hydrologic response

Be in water balance

Reduce and slow down stormwater runoff

Maximize groundwater recharge

Capture pollution

bacteria, sediment, nutrients

Minimize summer water use

Upgrade/separate sewers

Reduce inow and inltration (I/I) to sewers

Daylight buried streams

Site level: Post development water cycle to mimic

pre-development cycle

Keep rainwater clean and on site; store for

later use; eliminate runoff

Minimize water use

Maximize reuse

Minimize impervious surfaces

8

Fig 1.6 ABGSAs Greenspace Connections Plan Project


11/40

Plate 1.3 Concept Design and Vision for Restoration


12/40

10


Concept plan for Allston Creek sub-watershed: proposed green space network along a daylighted streamcorridor with threshold sites for storing and treating stormwater runoff in bioretention areas, constructedwetlands or ponds.


13/40

Plate 1.5 Recommendations for Sub-watershed Scale Restoration

Before and after scenarios for proposed Travis Street greening (top left), constructed wetland adjoining HarvardBusiness School (bottom left), daylighted stream corridor adjoining Honan Allston Library (bottom right) andrestoration of Allston Creek sub-watershed (top right).


14/40

practices throughout the campus and the sur-rounding neighborhood, and also to take advan-tage of this major redevelopment project to drivesub-watershed scale solutions and to build on andlink to existing open space, public health, andpublic realm needs. We have articulated severalspecific goals on a sub-watershed and site level re-spectively (see text boxes below and on page 8).

Concept design and vision for restoration

True urban environmental sustainability meansgoing beyond green to Blue Development - inother words, developing designs for the built en-vironment that engage constructively with everystage of the water cycle (See Plate 1.3 and 1.4 forConcept Design and Vision for Restoration). CR-WAs vision for Harvards campus centers around

a sub-watershed that functions like nature: collect-ing and filtering rainfall through plants and soilsand releasing it through small streams that flow tothe Charles River. Streams also function as naturalgreen corridors for people and wildlife, connectingthe neighborhood, the campus and the river. To-days technology and design allow urban environ-ments to be energy-efficient, water sensitive, andattractive while still meeting the needs of develop-ment. In addition to the campus redevelopment,CRWA has identified numerous other restorationopportunities that can be leveraged with Harvardsefforts, such as improvements to City-owned infra-structure to improve the areas drainage and runoff,and management and capital improvements in theDCR parklands.

Building a constituency for implementing therestoration approach

CRWA has recommended several specific restora-tion strategies for North Allston, developed de-tailed plans and built a broad base of support. Ourwork with neighborhood groups such as the AB-GSA and the Allston Brighton Task Force has en-tailed a significant commitment of staff resourcesto regularly attend evening meetings, host gather-ings, and communicate transparently with resi-dents, business owners and political leaders. Theserelationships have significantly improved our ownunderstanding of local issues and experiences. Thehave also built trust and cooperation, critical ele-ments in developing a shared vision.APPLYING THE VISION AND ASSESSINGRESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES

Site and sub-watershed scale design andmodeling

CRWA has developed detailed plans and a sched-ule for development-driven restoration that mesh-es with Harvards development schedule. Our re-development and restoration recommendationsrange in detail according to scale from build-ing-, to site-, and neighborhood-scale (see textbox). Several recommended plans for the HarvardAllston area include landscape designs for publicrealm improvements, and anticipated restorationoutcomes.

CRWA undertook extensive technical analysis todemonstrate the effectiveness of using specific LIDBest Management Practices (BMPs) at a sub-water-shed scale and modeling using specialized softwarecalled WinSLAMM. (For more details regarding

the modeling please refer to Appendix A.) Themodeling analysis was carried out based on certainassumptions about what percentage of land-usecategories will undergo redevelopment and thusincorporate LID stormwater retrofits, rather thanassigning specific LID treatments to a portion ofa source area. The analysis assumes that a certain

RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON TIME FRAME OF REDEVELOPMENT

(SHORT AND LONG TERM)

Short and medium term restoration projects

Design and build Rena Park as a part of the Allston Creek Greenway (open space connection from

library park through the new Science Complex to the river with pedestrian and bike trails possibly alonga daylighted stream corridor) connecting residential neighborhood to the Charles River

Green Everett Street as per guidelines developed by Allston Brighton Green Space Advocates and

improve access to Herter Park across Soldiers Field Road.

Plant street trees along major boulevards (Western Ave., North Harvard St. and Cambridge St.) and

where feasible retrot sections with stormwater best management practices.

Bury overhead electric and utility wires, r ebuild sidewalks and add amenities (benches, ower planters,

public art) along other neighborhood streets and where feasible accommodate bike lanes/paths.

Remove chain link fences that create barriers between community and University open space, espe-

cially along North Harvard St.

Improve the appearance of Harvard owned property all through North Allston and Brighton through

landscape buffers.

Long term restoration projects

Connect Harvard, BC, BU, and the river community with each other via new Emerald Bracelet.

Bury Soldiers Field Rd in the vicinity of Everett Street or create pedestrian friendly street crossings to

Herter Park in coordination with DCR (continuation of Riverwalk from North Harvard across Smith

Field through to the river).

Open space to connect neighborhood seamlessly with the Harvard facilities.

Implement the DCRs Charles River Master Plan for sections of the Charles River in Allston and convert

Herter Center to community use - docks, boat rental/storage, community center.

Alleviate ooding conditions in Smith Field through improved stormwater management including pos-

sible daylight of underground stream through Harvards recreational elds (opportunity to restore lagoon

and build connection from Herter Park to Harvard Boat House).

12

Figure 1.7 A green corridor and daylighted stream similarto CRWAs vision for Harvard was created in Berkeley, CA:before (top) and after (bottom) images of Blackberry Creek.Photos: http://www.forester.net/sw_0111_daylighting.html


15/40

percentage of all source areas (rooftops, roadways,etc.) will be treated by LID with an assumed pol-lution removal efficiency factor derived from lit-erature. Applying removal efficiencies or loadingreduction factors at the Land Use rather than atSource Area level, does not underestimate or notaccount for the pollution removal from treatmentsthat, in the real world, can accept stormwater flowsfrom other impervious source areas. (See Plate 1.5for Recommendations for Sub-watershed ScaleRestoration and Plate 1.6 for Sub-watershed De-sign and Modeling Results.)

Under proposed conditions, 50% of the industrialarea (Harvards future Science Complex) as wellas 50% of the institutional areas are assumed toundergo redevelopment and experience LID retro-fits. 25%of the residential and commercial areasare assumed to be treated by a proposed stormwa-ter wetland, pond or treatment train proposed inthe Open Land section (Refer to Figure 1.2.1 inPlate 1.2 ).

Toolkit of best management practices and

technologies

In an effort to provide useful technical support forour recommendations, CRWA has developed a setof matrices and fact sheets to help planners anddesigners assess specific techniques, referred to asLow Impact Development (LID) Best Manage-ment Practices (BMPs).

See Appendix B for these matrices and informationsheets.

RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON REDEVELOPMENT SCALE

Building scale:

Design buildings with green roofs to absorb stormwater.

Re-use water wherever possible; double-plumb buildings to allow for reuse.

Design water supply systems with zone controls, pressure variability, networked water control systems,

automatic shut-offs, etc.

Use water efcient cooling and heating methods.

Install ow monitors on sewers, track wastewater ows, and identify wastewater that can be eliminated

from the sanitary sewer network.

Site scale:

Mimic the water cycle by design: inltrate ows from impervious surfaces, reduce total annual runoff vol-

ume from the site by at least 50% over existing conditions, and maximize evapotranspiration (minimum of

20% vegetative cover overall).

Use green infrastructure as primary stormwater collection system, emphasizing surface level gravel, soil,

and vegetation based treatment and inltration systems over in-ground structures.

Connect water and open space in the Science Complex to larger water and open space network at neigh-

borhood scale. Preserve corridor for possible daylighting of the historic tributary to the Charles, currently

piped beneath the Science Complex site.

Make landscape design features such as green roofs, treatment wetlands, bioretention areas, and trans-

portation-related stormwater storage and treatment systems a visible part of the sites landscape design.

Treat all stormwater discharges to meet water quality standards before water leaves site.

Vegetate the site with deep-rooted native and/or drought-tolerant vegetation and, use only organic fertil-

izers and pesticides, if necessary.

Use soil amendments (i.e., compost and topsoil) and t illing to improve existing soil structure and inltration

and remove soils with poor inltration qualities. Use non-potable water for irrigation and use groundwater displaced from underground structures as a part

of a site and neighborhood scale water management system, instead of discharging to piped infrastruc-

ture.

Neighborhood scale:

Improve neighborhood public realm by creating new public open space and Green Streets to alleviate

ooding, improve air quality and provide aesthetic and public health benets.

Integrate water features with public open space through providing interpretive signage for Allston Creek

corridor and stormwater wetland garden as a part of a greenway connecting the neighborhood to the

Charles River.

Establish an information and educational program including reporting monthly water use to laboratory

directors and facilities managers as well as employee incentives and award programs.


16/40

14

Plate 1.6 Sub-watershed Scale Design and Modeling Results

WinSLAMM outputs for proposed scenario for LID retrofits in Allston Creek Sub-watershed


17/40



The Zakim North area lies north-west of the Zakim

Bridge, and includes large areas of East Cambridge,Somerville, and the Charlestown neighborhoodof Boston. This land formerly drained into theMillers River. The river, once a 6-mile long tribu-tary of the lower Charles, has been almost com-pletely eliminated and now consists of less than aquarter-mile of open water (see Plate 2.1, Fig 2.1and text box below for details of the transforma-tion brought about by the filling of the tidal flats).

Today, much of the Zakim North area is a flatindustrial and rail complex. In addition to suf-fering from severe stormwater runoff problems,with street flooding and sewer backups, the areacurrently has a combined sewer system (with pipes

carrying both stormwater and sanitary sewage) so

overloaded that it cannot handle even moderaterainfall. This area, however, is poised for large scaleredevelopment and is expected to change dramati-cally in the coming decade, transforming into a vi-brant, pedestrian-friendly urban neighborhood.

Sizeable new development is currently planned inthe lower watershed portion of the Zakim Northarea. The 45-acre NorthPoint project includesplans for approximately 20 buildings with a mix ofuses, new parks and open space, new transporta-tion elements - including a new Massachusetts BayTransit Authority (MBTA) stop - and new infra-structure. Adjoining the NorthPoint project, theCharles E. Smith Residential Development site iscomposed of three parcels covering 5.7 acres andexpected to provide approximately 767 residen-tial units in two buildings with an undergroundparking garage containing 870 parking spaces.The buildings will also contain office space, cafs

with outdoor seating areas, a fitness center, and a2,400 square-foot retail store. The area betweenthe old dam at the Museum of Science and thenew Charles River dam and locks also has five newparks, constructed with mitigation funds from theCentral Artery Project. The above projects, alongwith the redevelopment planned in Brick Bottomand the Inner Belt, in close proximity to the riverand the new parks, offer major opportunities forimproving the current urban environment.

Identification of issues and opportunities andfield verification

CRWA undertook extensive site visits and field

work, including both dry and wet weather watersampling, to understand the complex physical andinfrastructure issues that are causing serious waterproblems in the Zakim North Area. We identifiedextensive street flooding and sewer back-ups inparts of East Cambridge and Somerville; the re-lease of untreated sewage directly to the Charles

River; and contaminated runoff from the MBTAsBoston Engine Terminal into the Cambridge sew-er system, as well as into the Millers River. Theseproblems are all linked to the historic filling of theMillers River, which once provided drainage forthe entire area. Field collection of important infor-mation about stormwater quality and flow provedthat flooding, overloaded combined sewers, andundocumented stormwater infrastructure cover allscales, from the single-site scale to the whole sub-watershed. The magnitude of these problems re-quires the participation of multiple stakeholders to

design and implement comprehensive solutions ona watershed scale. While highlighting the serious-ness of the stormwater issues plaguing the ZakimNorth area, CRWA has identified numerous resto-ration opportunities on a variety of scales that notonly provide solutions to the technical challengeswe found but can also improve the overall environ-

By 1795 the area of the Boston peninsula

had been increased, primarily by wharng

out- the process of constructing wharves out-ward from the shore and later lling the slips

between them. While on one hand wharng

out added land to the southwestern shore ofthe Charlestown peninsula, on the other Mill

dams had been built across the head of thecove between Charlestown and what is now

Somerville. By 1852 new passenger bridges

linked Boston, East Cambridge, Charlestown,and Somerville, but even more striking was

the proliferation of railroad bridges. By 1880

the southern shore of Charlestown had alsobeen increased almost to the present line by

the lling of Prison Point Bay and most of the

Millers River.

- Page 17, Mapping Boston, edited by Alex

Krieger and David Cobb, MIT Press 1999.

Case Study - Zakim North Area

Fig 2.1 Diagramming the Growth of Boston 1630-1795 (CourtesyMapping Boston,edited by Alex Krieger andDavid Cobb, MIT Press 1999)

Fig. 2.2 Extensive street flooding in the Zakim North Area


18/40

16

Plate 2.1 Historical Mapping of the Millers Watershed and Existing Conditions


19/40


Figure 2.2.1 Impervious areamapping in the Inner Belt

Figure 2.2.2 WinSLAMM outputs for existing conditions categorizedby source area within the Inner Belt for runoff volume and loading forTotal Phosphorous, Total Suspended Solids and Total Copper


20/40

mental health of the neighborhoods, and providea sound, water-based foundation for designing thisnew area as a Blue City.


The Zakim North Inner Belt study area is located

primarily in Somerville, bordered to the north byWashington Street, to the south and west by MBTAcommuter rail tracks, and to the east by I-93 (Fig-ure 2.4). A portion of the northwest corner crossesthe border into the Charlestown neighborhood ofBoston. Much of the study is classified as industri-al (Figure 2.4, purple shaded) with a small portionof the northeast boundary classified as residential(Figure 2.4, orange shaded) as defined by the Re-source Mapping Project conducted by UMass Am-herst whose land use spatial data layer is served outby MassGIS. Since many of the proposed retrofitsand Low Impact Development (LID) treatmentsare proposed for the industrial area, this reportpresents results from the Inner Belt industrial area.

(See Plate 2.2 for existing conditions analysis andsub-watershed modeling.)

The Inner Belt Industrial study area is approxi-mately 109 acres, a staggering 90% of which areimpervious. Of the impervious area, most is com-prised of flat rooftops, paved parking and storage,

and other directly connected impervious area which includes the train tracks, and a varietyof impervious areas (Figure 2.2.1 in Plate 2.2).

Not surprisingly, the high degree of imperviousland in this area creates tremendous water re-source problems. CRWAs modeling and analysisof this area indicates that a combination of smallscale decentralized LID Best Management Prac-tices (BMPs) designed to reduce the amount of

directly connected impervious area, and larger in-frastructure improvements to handle flood flows,are needed to resolve the problems in this area.See Plate 2.6 and Appendix A for detailed descrip-tions of CRWAs modeling.


Planning framework and existing regulatorybackground

Since the Zakim North area includes parts of threedifferent cities (Cambridge, Somerville and Bos-ton), the regulatory framework involves zoningand planning guidelines issued by three different

city planning agencies. In addition various Stateand Federal agencies exercise regulatory authority(see text box).

As mentioned before, a number of redevelopmentprojects are being undertaken in the Zakim North

Area, including the North-Point project, Charles E.Smith Residential develop-ment, projects within theBrickbottom and the InnerBelt district as well as plan-ning for the Green Lineextension and the UrbanRing. The areas major arealandowners are the MBTA, which operates the BostonEngine Terminal and tracks;MA Department of Con-servation and Recreation(DCR), which owns NorthPoint Park; and ArchonGroup, which has recentlyacquired the rights to de-velop NorthPoint from Bos-ton Maine Corp., and Cam-bridge NorthPoint LLC.Other important stakehold-ers include MassachusettsWater Resources Authority(MWRA), U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency(USEPA), MA Departmentof Environmental Protec-tion (DEP) and several otherprivate sector parties. In ad-

dition to convening a working group of regulators,property owners and municipal officials, CRWAhas conducted complex research into the deeds, li-censes, permits and obligations of the various par-ties to determine their stormwater managementobligations.


CRWA has been working with the cities of Cam-bridge, Boston and Somerville, neighborhood andcommunity groups, and park advocacy groupsconcerned with the lower Charles River to ensurethat the redevelopment in the Zakim North area,

REGULATORY AGENCIES, PUBLIC

LANDOWNERS & STAKEHOLDERS


Federal agencies:

US Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA)

State agencies: Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection (DEP)

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

(MWRA)

Department of Conservation and Recreation

(DCR)

Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA)

City agencies:

Cambridge Conservation Commission

Cambridge Department of Environmental and

Transportation Planning

Community Development Department

Cambridge Department of Public Works

(DPW)

Cambridge Water Department

Somerville Ofce of Strategic Planning &

Community Development (OSPCD) Somerville Department of Public Works

(DPW)


Boston Transportation Authority (BTD)


(BWSC)

Boston Public Works Department (PWD)

18

Fig. 2.3 Puddling along the Millers drainage corridor

Fig. 2.4 Study area boundary for the Inner Belt: area shaded purple is industrial,orange is residential.


21/40


22/40

20


Figure 2.4.1 Analog images for proposed retrofits in the Brickbottom district (green streets, linear pocket parks,plazas with permeable pavers and raingardens, water features to store and treat stormwater runoff ).

Figure 2.4.1 Analog images for proposed retrofits in the Hood Office Park and Bunker Hill Community Colsub-areas (bioretention areas, low-irrigation landscaping, porous asphalt and pervious pavers in courtyard are


23/40


Before and after scenarios forproposed retrofits in the InnerBelt (greening of streets andparking lot) at top right and

botom right; analog images forstormwater planters within thepublic right of way and greenroof retrofits on existing build-ings, at left.


24/40

as jump-started by the NorthPoint project, actu-ally benefits the river, park system, and surround-ing environment. Several critical regulatory and le-gal processes have made progress in this area slow.A lengthy enforcement process between the DEPand the MBTA (principal landowner in the studyarea) has limited our ability to work directly withthe MBTA or other property owners. In addition,

a citizen group appealed a Chapter 91 license, is-sued by the State to the NorthPoint project. Thisproceeding resulted in a decision in favor of thecitizen group, but it was soon reversed when theLegislature passed a bill in November 2007 thateffectively exempted non-waterfront properties onfilled tidelands from stringent licensing require-ments under state laws.

CRWA formed a partnership with ConservationLaw Foundation to determine the legal environ-mental obligations of key stakeholders, and to as-certain how to use the various permit processes tobring all parties to the table to develop and funda comprehensive solution. The technical and legal

complexities of title, licensing obligations, permitrequirements and enforcement have all contributedto a protracted and as yet unresolved developmentand design process.


In June, 2005, after several months of data col-lection, site visits, attending public hearings, andexamination of permits and licenses, CRWA con-vened a meeting of the major stakeholders. Ourfirst step towards implementing a long-term solu-tion to the areas drainage problems was to under-take an analysis of potential engineering solutions.As a follow-up to that meeting, CRWA prepared a

draft scope of work for an engineering feasibilitystudy, which could provide a detailed examinationof opportunities to restore the areas water environ-ment. We met with the same stakeholder groupsix months later to finalize the scope of work anddiscuss opportunities to fund it.

The objective of the engineering feasibility studywas to collect, compile and analyze all of the re-ports and data that had been prepared to date. Sig-nificant engineering studies had already been con-ducted in the area, including several studies of thestorm drains and sewers systems conducted for theMWRA and the City of Cambridge and technicalreports prepared for the MBTA as part of their con-

struction project to improve the Boston Engine Ter-minal. We held interviews with relevant managersand staff from Cambridge, Boston, Somerville, theMBTA, MWRA, DEP and private landowners inthe area to develop potential design solutions which would form a part of the restoration approach.

CRWA supported the Office of Strategic Plan-ning and Community Development (OSPCD) atthe City of Somerville in applying for a 403 (b)grant from DEP to fund the engineering feasibil-ity study and conduct the required public outreachand stakeholder coordination needed as a part ofthe study. This grant, however, was not awarded,so this study has not been funded to date. CRWA

also worked very closely with OSPCD to influencethe development of the lower McGrath Highwaycorridor, through its involvement with a designcompetition titled Edge as Center that the Cityof Somerville and Boston Society of Architectslaunched in January of 2006.

CRWA thus built a solid understanding of theactual conditions on the ground, as well as theircauses, and then moved to begin building supportfor restoration. In instances where property own-ers and regulatory bodies have not participated,CRWA is attempting to enforce the legal environ-mental obligations of key stakeholders by research-ing various permit processes to use as leverage toencourage parties to collaborate in developing andfunding a more comprehensive solution.



Zakim North will undergo significant redevelop-ment in the coming years. This provides a uniqueopportunity to implement design and planningthat will reverse damage to the watershed, addressstormwater challenges, improve pedestrian accessand open space, and enhance the river. CRWAidentified possible technical solutions to the storm-water management issues as well as numerous res-toration opportunities at a sub-watershed level-

including the feasibility of daylighting (openingup) portions of the now-filled Millers River.

Our primary design goal for the Zakim North areawould be to maximize natural rainwater storage,provide adequate carrying capacity and improvewater quality while also providing public ameni-ties and riparian and aquatic habitat improvement.Specifically, CRWA has the following priorities forthe project:

1. Improve wet weather water quality in the Mill-ers and Charles Rivers,

2. Eliminate uncontrolled/untreated stormwaterrunoff,

3. Reduce volume of stormwater entering thecombined sewer system,

4. Increase wet weather capacity of MWRAbranch sewers before the Mystic River siphon.

5. Eliminate sewer system back-ups in Somervilleand Cambridge,

6. Reduce Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) ac-tivations at Prison Point.

7. Find the most cost effective way to obtain asmany benefits as possible to the most involvedparties.

Concept design and vision f or restoration

CRWA has developed a framework for identify-ing opportunities for green infrastructure develop-

ment, which include daylighting portions of thenow-filled Millers River, and retrofitting streetsand other hard-scaped areas with LID BMPs (seePlate 2.3). Restoring the Millers River corridor orwatershed would include the design and construc-tion of a new stormwater drainage system to carrystormwater from the area once drained by the river(over 300 acres), perhaps in phases. The projectgoal would be to provide stormwater drainage forthe MBTA, NorthPoint, portions of Charlestown,Somerville, and Cambridge, and perhaps includeother private sector neighbors like the CE Smithdevelopment and Boston Sand and Gravel.

The most cost effective solution would involve

a multi-layered design approach with numeroussmall, site scale BMPs to clean and treat small rain-storms and the first flush of larger storms; chan-nels, swales and other open conveyance systemsto handle moderate flows in natural drainage pat-terns; and large conventional infrastructure (pipesand pumps) to prevent flooding during large rain-fall events.


CRWA continues its efforts to build political andfinancial support for the development of a feasibleengineering solution to the areas flooding and wa-

ter quality problems. It is crucial that the abovestudy includes construction phases and costs andacknowledges all responsible parties in implement-ing the solution. Given the complexity of owner-ship, licensing, and permitting issues in the area,legal research and enforcement play a vital role in

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

REDEVELOPMENT IN THE

ZAKIM NORTH AREA

Keep drainage open wherever possible

(channels, swales, wetlands rather than

pipes)

Design water quality treatment throughout

system

Design system so it is easy to maintain

Determine whether there are any areas inthe former Millers River watershed where

recharge is appropriate

Enforce legal obligations for various parties

depending on ownership and maintenance

requirements laid out in various permits

issued.

22


25/40


WinSLAMM outputs for proposed scenario with LID retrofits in the Inner Belt area (showing reduction in runoff and loading for metals, nutrients and solids)


26/40

ensuring that the right outcome is achieved. Froman area-wide perspective, the willing participa-tion of all the stakeholders would clearly lead to amuch better solution. CRWA is currently on theCitizen Advisory Committee for the New CharlesRiver Basin Parks project, which is responsible foroverseeing the project implementation, and hasconsistently advocated for access and open spaceconnections to and along the river in this area.

APPLYING THE VISION AND ASSESSINGRESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES

Recommendations based on scale ofredevelopment

Numerous LID BMPs have been developed forurban areas like Zakim North. Among the ben-efits of implementing these are reduced flooding,better water quality, and numerous environmen-tal and aesthetic improvements to local businessesand residences. Given the contamination levels incertain areas of the watershed, however, we do notrecommend infiltrating stormwater in many ar-eas. The following BMPs could be lined with an

impermeable layer to avoid infiltration, while stillimproving the health, aesthetics, and quality of theMillers River - and ultimately, the Charles, intowhich it flows:

Sidewalk rain gardens to improve water quali-ty, reduce peak storm flows, and improve streetaesthetic. The rain gardens would receive andtreat water flows from the street through aninlet in the sidewalk instead of letting it flowuntreated into a storm sewer network,

Green roofs which slow and filter runoff whileinsulating buildings and reducing the urbanheat island effect,

Bioretention areas in parking lots, courtyards,

and other paved areas to capture and filterrainwater,

Porous pavement and pavers to allow rainwaterto filter down into a subsurface granite bed,

Street trees.

Site and sub-watershed scale design andmodeling

In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposedBMPs, the WinSLAMM Model was used to deter-mine both pollutant removal as well as reductionin runoff from the Inner Belt area (refer to Plate2.6 for Sub-watershed Scale Design and ModelingResults). The removal calculations from this studyarea are very conservative and underestimate the

effects of the proposed treatments. Pollution load-ings were removed solely from the source area re-ceiving treatment and not removed from untreatedsource areas that could flow to treatments. Also,dissolved constituents are modeled to be removedby recharge alone, based on the recharge multiplierwhich was developed for 0.5 inches of recharge forproposed LID retrofits. No phytoremediation,biotransformation or other physical and chemicalprocesses are factored in the removal of dissolvedpollutants from proposed green infrastructure.

Under proposed conditions, average annual runoffvolume is reduced by nearly 22%, total solids, bynearly 25%, total phosphorus by 18%, nitrate by

24%, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN, which is thesum of organic and ammonia nitrogen) by 16%,total copper by nearly 33%, total lead by 28%, to-tal zinc by 34%, and total cadmium by 29%.

Toolkit of best management practices andtechnologies

See Appendix B for the Low Impact Development(LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) matri-ces and information sheets.

24


27/40



The Longwood Medical and Academic Area(LMA), one of Bostons densest urban neighbor-hoods, is undergoing some of the most ambitiousredevelopment efforts in the city. The complexityof the area, and the scale of the planned redevelop-ment, present some of the greatest challenges - aswell as opportunities - for restoring and enhancingparkland, improving the environment, and, mostparticularly, correcting and improving problemsrelated to water. Such problems include flood-ing, pollution, the unstable condition of the watertable, and many sub-watershed issues.

The LMA occupies critical terrain beside the Mud-dy River, a celebrated local landmark that is alsothe most polluted tributary of the lower CharlesRiver. Building density, transportation demandsand the sort of haphazard infrastructure designtypical of older urban areas combine to pose a hostof environmental challenges in the LMA. Witha beautiful urban park system - part of FrederickLaw Olmsteds fabled Emerald Necklace - atits front door, the LMA, while already overbuilt,nonetheless faces a further redevelopment. Theimpact of such building - in terms of traffic, noiseand shadow - is widely recognized. Its impact onthe Emerald Necklace is far less understood or ap-preciated.

Identification of issues and opportunities and

field verification

In the LMA, as in many areas of the city, impervi-ous urban development, subway and infrastructuretunnels, groundwater pumping, leaking pipes, andthe characteristics of urban fill all contribute to afalling water table. This has been a hidden problemfor years in Boston, but as its scale and scope havecontinued to expand, it has clearly become one ofthe most important water resource problems nowfacing the city. Therefore CRWA has identifieda need for developing guidelines for sustainablesite and building design, which would address theabove concerns through restoration driven by in-stitutional redevelopment.

Because the current building density of the LMA

leaves very little room for growth other than bybuilding new, larger buildings on the si tes of olderbuildings, the LMA provides an excellent modelfor studying how carefully planned redevelop-ment can improve a rapidly-changing neighbor-hood. Linking the Muddy River restoration andimproved park stewardship to growth in the LMAprovides a unique opportunity to simultaneouslyaddress water issues including storm water man-agement, groundwater, and water supply.

CRWA has conducted numerous site visits to thestudy area and documented existing conditions asthey relate to stormwater management within theLMA and its impact on the Muddy River. In addi-tion to verifying observations in the field, we have

In 1876 the Boston City Park Commissionproposed a system of ten parks, but only one,

what is now the Back Bay Fens, was approved

in 1877 - and not because it would provide arecreational area but because it would solve

a sewage problem. The full basin of Back

Bay had become very polluted by the sew-age draining into it from Stoney Brook and the

Muddy River. The citys plan was to build new

sewers to carry these two streams directly intothe Charles River and to turn the full basin

into a holding area for storm overows from

Stony Brook. The plan was modied some-what by Frederick Law Olmsted whose plan

called for a great deal of dredging, lling, andconstruction of bridges, and the park was not

completed until the 1890s. (The design of the

Back Bay Fens soon became obsolete, how-ever, when the Charles River Dam was built

in the rst decade of the twentieth century,

turning the waterway in the park from salt tofresh and removing the need for a holding ba-

sin, and the park was then altered.)

- Page 131, Mapping Boston, edited by Alex

Krieger and David Cobb, MIT Press 1999.

Case Study - Longwood Medical and Academic Area

The LMA is situated three miles from downtown

and is adjacent to the Mission Hill, AudubonCircle and Fenway residential neighborhoods

of Boston. It encompasses approximately 210

acres of land with approximately 14 million

square feet of building oor area, another 2.6million square feet of currently proposed de-

velopment, and approximately 13,000 parkingspaces. The LMA has reached a point where

the transportation infrastructure serving thearea cannot easily accommodate additional

growth while maintaining a desirable function-

ality without signicant improvements and acomprehensive master plan to guide future de-

velopment. There are also signicant impacts

on the environment, urban design and the sur-rounding residential neighborhoods, as well as

opportunities for economic and workforce de-

velopment, that need to be addressed.

- Longwood Medical Area Interim Guidelines

issued by the Boston Redevelopment Author-ity, February 2003

Fig 3.1 Historic map (circa 1894) and photos of the EmeraldNecklace and aerial photo of the Muddy River Fens (CourtesyEmerald Necklace Conservancy).

Fig. 3.2 Flooding in the Muddy River in October 1996 andJune 1998 (photos courtesy Emerald Necklace Conservancyand MBTA).


28/40

26

Plate 3.1 Historical Mapping of the Muddy River and the Fens Basin

l d d l l f h d d l


29/40

Plate 3.2 Existing Conditions and Historical Evolution of the Longwood Medical Area

1895 1919 1945 1968 1975 1995 2004

Maps courtesy Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and Medical, Academic and Scientific Community Organization (MASCO).


30/40

also conducted both dry and wet weather samplingat the outfalls of the Muddy River, documentederosion hot-spots, and modeled runoff volume andpollutant load concentration using WinSLAMMsoftware, as part of our engineering analysis at asub-watershed level.


The Longwood Medical Area study area boundaryis the engineered drainage area as defined by Bos-ton Water and Sewer Commissions stormwater in-frastructure and spatial data as shared with CRWAin March 2005.

The LMA study area is approximately 84 acres. Interms of its modeled runoff and pollution source

areas, it is comprised mainly of flat roofs (38%;~ 32 acres), followed by other directly connectedimpervious area (16%; ~ 14 acres). Other sourceareas of note are paved parking (15%), street area(14%), and landscaped areas (10%) lumped intothe large landscaped area category.

After defining the existing conditions, average an-nual runoff and pollution loadings were calculated.As most source areas are impervious and directly

connected to a storm sewer system, runoff patternsfollow, for the most part, the percent by area ofthe source areas. The landscaped areas are the onlyexception to the rule, which account for 10% ofthe land area but only 3% of the runoff (Figure3.4.1).


Planning framework and existing regulatorybackground

The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) hasprimary regulatory responsibility for planning and

redevelopment in the LMA. Each building proj-ect goes through a formal review process with theCity of Boston and a separate review process un-der the Massachusetts Environmental ProtectionAct (MEPA), depending on the size and scale ofthe project and applicable impact thresholds. Overthe years, however, the rate of development in theLMA and the relative lack of comprehensive plan-ning have caused great concern about cumulativeenvironmental impacts on both the local and re-gional level.

In February 2003 the BRA issued a set of InterimGuidelines to govern proposed development, pre-vent ad hoc growth in the LMA, and control growth

in a fair and equitable manner. These guidelineswere intended to inform the BRAs considerationswhile reviewing projects and Institutional MasterPlans in this area, and be implemented through theBRAs development review process as outlined inArticle 80 of the Boston Zoning Code. During the

period in which the Interim Guidelines were to bein effect, the existing zoning and approval processwould remain the primary control.

Soon after the Interim Guidelines were issued, theBRA and the Office of Jobs and Community Ser-vices - i n conjunction with the Boston Transporta-tion Department (BTD) and area residents and in-stitutions - were supposed to develop a master planfor the LMA to guide future change and, when

appropriate, direct institutional expansion awayfrom the LMA to locations elsewhere in the Cityof Boston. The LMA Master Plan never material-ized, however, so the Interim Guidelines still con-stitute the primary framework for comprehensiveplanning in the LMA.


The Medical Academic and Scientific CommunityOrganization (MASCO) is a non-profit organiza-tion established in 1972 by its member institutions- consisting mostly of educational institutions andhospitals - to plan, develop and enhance the LMA

for the benefit of all who obtain medical assistance,study, and work in the area. MASCOs mission is topursue programs that promote a sense of commu-nity among its members and to create and deliverservices more effectively. MASCO also organizesthe LMA Forum in coordination with the BRA.The Forum meets on a regular basis to review vari-ous continuing development/redevelopment proj-ects in the area, and is responsible for ensuring thatinstitutional development creates minimal impacton the surrounding neighborhood, in terms ofissues like traffic, noise and shadow. The Forumhas not, however, developed a comprehensive un-derstanding of the impacts of new developmenton the Emerald Necklace and the Muddy River.

CRWA has, therefore, been working with other lo-cal groups to raise local awareness of the impacts ofthe new development on the natural resources thatsurround the neighborhood. In addition we havereached out to the individual institutions in theLMA to explain and advocate for our recommen-

dations for water-friendly design at the buildingand individual site level.


CRWA has invested resources into collecting in-formation and identifying potential solutions, andalso into building support for implementation.Given our experience with and knowledge base ofthe Muddy River Restoration Project, which is be-

ing implemented in close proximity to the LMA,we see a significant opportunity to apply lessonslearned there to restoration in the LMA. In ad-dition to hosting our own public forum in May2007, CRWA has modeled runoff volume and pol-lutant load concentration using WinSLAMM soft-ware as part of our engineering analysis at a sub-watershed level. CRWA is also helping to set highstandards for stormwater management and publicrealm improvement through both the BRAs LargeProject Review and the MEPA review processes.We are not only evaluating existing conditions andopportunities for environmental restoration, butalso working closely with park advocates to ensurethat the public benefits package in each of the proj-

ect applications adequately addresses the prioritiesoutlined for park maintenance and river restora-tion.

REGULATORY AGENCIES &

STAKEHOLDERS


City agencies:


Boston Transportation Authority (BTD)


(BWSC)

Stakeholders:

Medical Academic and Scientic Community

(MASCO)

Muddy River Maintenance and Management

Oversight Committee (MMOC)

Emerald Necklace Conservancy (ENC)

Fenway Alliance

Fenway Civic Association

28

Figure 3.3 Some of the many impervious areas in the LMA

Pl 3 3 LMA I i G id li


31/40

Plate 3.3 LMA Interim Guidelines

Maps courtesy Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).


32/40

30

"?B"?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B"?B"?B "?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B

"?B"?B"?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B"?B "?B

"?B

"?B

"?B"?B"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

!.

!.!.

0 25 0 500125Feet O

Legend

StormwaterPipes

Pipe Size "

< 10

10 - 12

13 - 16

18 - 22

24 - 28

29 - 35

36 - 41

>= 42



Source Data: MassGIS, BWSC


Parking

Building Footprints

Impervious Area

"?B"?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B"?B"?B "?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B

"?B"?B"?B

"?B

"?B"?B

"?B"?B "?B

"?B

"?B

"?B"?B"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

"?B

!.

!.!.

0 250 500125Feet O

Legend

StormwaterPipes

Pipe Size

< 10

10 - 12

13 - 16

18 - 22

24 - 28

29 - 35

36 - 41

>= 42



Impervious Area

Pervious

Impervious

Source Data: MassGIS, BWSC



Figure 3.4.2 WinSLAMM outputs for existing concategorized by source area within LMA sub-watershrunoff volume and loading for total Phosphorous, Suspended Solids and total Copper

Figure 3.4.1 Analysis of Pervious & Impervious areasfor WinSLAMM modeling for delineated sub-watershed


33/40



CRWAs main goal in the LMA is to ensure thatthe growth in the LMA is environmentally sound,and to help citizens, developers and public agen-cies ensure that watershed management is im-proved even in this ultra-urban setting. Properly

guided, development in the LMA can improve thepark system through capital projects and in creasedmaintenance and oversight. More specifically CR-WAs priorities include:

1. Incorporate green infrastructure concepts intoLMA strategic/master plans,

2. Develop stormwater standards for site andbuilding scale development,

3. Engage the public and Muddy River/EmeraldNecklace advocates,

4. Work with City of Boston agencies and de-partments, and with MASCO and LMA in-stitutions to incorporate design concepts andfind pilot projects.

Concept design and vision f or restoration

Redevelopment projects present opportunitiesto restore natural hydrologic functions; create ahealthier, more pedestrian-friendly urban environ-ment; and offer potential solutions to problems in-cluding flooding, excessive pollution, urban heat,and lack of groundwater recharge. CRWA there-fore supports pursuing policy and design innova-tions to help improve water quality, reduce flood-ing, provide habitat, contribute to groundwaterrecharge, and promote beautiful networks of pe-destrian corridors and open space. Water-sensitivedesign incorporated into the architecture, land-

scape architecture, and engineering of the LMAcan improve the health of the Muddy River and itssurrounding neighborhoods (see Plate 3.5).


As mentioned above, CRWA is advocating for im-proved stormwater management, better public ac-cess to the park system, and improved maintenanceof the parkland through commenting on projectsat various stages of the City and State review pro-cess. CRWA is working with MASCO and eachinstitution involved in redevelopment to incorpo-

rate stormwater management approaches in boththe public and the private realm, and to achieveimproved water quality and restoration of the pre-development water cycle at a sub-watershed level.

CRWA is closely scrutinizing each redevelop-ment proposal to ensure that the public benefitspackage in each project adequately addresses thepriorities outlined for park maintenance andriver restoration. Because the historically sig-nificant Emerald Necklace is already under greatstress from poor maintenance, impaired water

quality, and heavy traffic, the parkland restora-tion approach includes several critical elements:

1. Establishing a methodology for assessing theexisting use levels, and the potential impacts ofredevelopment on the park system,

2. Evaluating existing opportunities for improvedaccess and enhancement,

3. Examining the opportunities for mitigatingimpacts that increased use will create,

4. Identifying opportunities to work with theexisting public private partnerships that havebeen institutionalized, such as the EmeraldNecklace Conservancy and the Fenway Alli-ance.

As a part of the restoration approach, CRWA isalso working with public, private, non-profit andbusiness groups to address the groundwater deple-tion problem in areas of Boston, including theFenway. Our work on urban water infrastructuremakes us natural partners in efforts underway toaddress this problem. We consider the issue criti-cal because it ties into many urban water problems,such as Combined Sewer Overflows, stormwater

management, wastewater planning, inflow and in-filtration and public water resource education. Toaddress this issue CRWA is working actively withthe City-State ground water working group thatwas established in the fall of 2005 to implementstricter standards for groundwater recharge in theareas included within the groundwater overlaydistrict. In addition to this, CRWA has formed apartnership with the Green Roundtable to com-plement their efforts on green building, as appliedon a neighborhood scale. The effort is aimed atintegrating Leadership in Energy and Environ-mental Design (LEED) green building standardsand Low Impact Development (LID) strategies toachieve a much larger impact through the green-

ing of infrastructure at a neighborhood level.

APPLYING THE VISION AND ASSESSINGRESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES

Site scale and sub-watershed scale design andmodeling

In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposedBest Management Practices (BMPs), the Win-SLAMM Model was used to determine both pol-lutant removal as well as reduction in runoff from

a delineated sub-watershed (refer to Plate 3.6 forSub-watershed Scale Design and Modeling Re-sults). The removal calculations from this studyarea are very conservative and underestimate theeffects of the proposed treatments. One reasonbeing, the loadings are removed solely from thesource area receiving treatment and not removedfrom untreated source areas that could flow totreatments. For example, untreated rooftop run-off abutting a proposed green street is not assumedto be treated by proposed rain gardens, tree pits orother LID. Also, dissolved constituents are mod-eled to be removed by recharge alone, which is as-sumed to be one inch for all areas proposed forLID retrofits. No phytoremediation, biotransfor-

mation or other physical and chemical processesare factored in the removal of dissolved pollutantsfrom proposed green in frastructure.

Under proposed conditions, total runoff volumeis reduced by 34%, total phosphorus by 25%, ni-trate (from recharge alone) by 40%, total Kjeldahlnitrogen (TKN) (the sum of organic and ammonianitrogen) by 27%, total copper by 42%, total leadby 47%, total zinc by 47% and total cadmium by45%.

Toolkit of best management practices andtechnologies

See Appendix B for the Low Impact Development(LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) Matri-ces and Information Sheets.

RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON

SCALE OF REDEVELOPMENT

Maximize inltration, slow runoff from thesite, maximize the use of vegetation, cap-

ture rooftop runoff for irrigation, minimizeimperviousness and minimize sediment

and nutrient loading. LID retrots for stormwater treatment

which also provide inltration to recharge

groundwater levels in the area. Recycle and reuse wastewater and

capture roof runoff for inltration and/

or storage for slow release to rechargegroundwater levels.

Improve the conditions of the park, as apart of its community benets package.

Go beyond green building (LEED andGreen Guide for Health Care) standardsto address environmental restoration at aneighborhood level

Plate 3 5 Concept Design and Vision for Restoration


34/40

32


Figure 3.5.2 (above left and left) Conceptplans for green infrastructure retrofits(green roofs, green streets and open spaces- legend below). At left, Phase one retro-fits proposed for projects currently beingredeveloped.

WheelockCollege

Joslin DiabetesCenter

EmmanuelCollege

SimmonsCollege

ChildrensHospital

Dana FarberCenter Institute

Harvard MedicalSchoolMass Mental

Health CenterMass College ofPharmacy andHealth Services

GREEN STREETSARTERIALS

GREEN STREETSLOCALS

OPEN SPACES

GREEN ROOFS

Figure 3.5.3 (right) Proposed hierarchyof Green Streets in LMA (ranging fromarterials to local).

Figure 3.5.1 Before (above left) and after (above right) scenarios for proposed green street retrofits along specific segments ofBrookline Avenue.

Plate 3 6 Sub-watershed Scale Design and Modeling Results


35/40


WinSLAMM outputs for proposed scenario with LID retrofits in delineated sub-watershed (showing reduction in runoff and loading for solids, metals and nutrients)


36/40

Conclusions and Lessons Learned

During three years of analysis, planning, design,community outreach, and advocacy, CRWAs em-phasis on integrating water and land in urban ar-eas generated excitement in residents, developers,planners and public officials alike. Designs thatwe developed as watershed restoration techniques

held particular appeal for residents. Green Streets,greenways that follow daylighted streams, andponds and wetlands in parks all held great appeal.These attractive design elements produce tangiblebenefits: they slow traffic, clean the air, reduce heateffects, improve the pedestrian environment, andincrease open space. Our work also demonstratesthe practicality of many Blue Cities concepts, evenin densely developed urban neighborhoods. Small-scale solutions, applied across a broad area, cangenerate meaningful, measurable improvements.

Our experiences in the three study areas highlight-ed common issues. The Template for Blue CitiesRestoration (page 37) includes a set of steps that werecommend for any urban area: getting to knowstakeholders; understanding historic and currentconditions; and developing restoration plans thatintegrate public and private priorities.

Obstacles encountered in the three study areas also

yielded valuable lessons. Typically, the greatestchallenges were not technical. Cost is an obstaclefor some design ideas, but surprisingly many softgreen solutions are actually competitive with con-ventional hard piped infrastructure solutions.When ancillary benefits are factored in, Blue Cit-

ies designs are often excellent investments.

The most persistent obstacle we found involvedhuman factors. Owners and managers need totrust designs for effectiveness and economic ben-efit. Members of the public need to feel confident

that recycled stormwater in open spaces and alongstreets (in swales, rain gardens, and fountains, forexample) will not attract litter and vandalism orsupport mosquitoes or other pests. Regulatorsneed to be confident that new designs will meetlegislated standards. Questions about system main-tenance, cold climate performance, and toleranceto climate change are all legitimate. There is a pro-found need for pilot projects here in the Bostonarea to find reliable answers.

Even taking these concerns into account, we notethat Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Kan-sas City, and many other urban areas have imple-mented Blue Cities design elements, from rain

gardens to green alleys and stormwater fountainsin public parks. We recommend that Boston con-tinue to adopt and adapt this design approach.New England must promote broader acceptanceof the functionality, beauty and longevity of thesedesigns. Education, site visits, pilot projects, andevolving regulatory programs all play roles in thisnecessary evolution.

Regulatory requirements can encourage green de-velopment by making public and private sectorland owners recognize the need for prompt action.But regulations are typically performance-based; inand of themselves they cannot achieve Blue Citiesgoals. Ongoing discussions and working sessions

are the most valuable tools for progress in these ar-eas. A process of continuing, non-confrontationalproblem-solving meetings involving all s takehold-ers is most likely to yield success. Several specificlessons deserve particular emphasis.

1. USE STRONGVISUAL MATERIALS

Our public outreachprogram has taught usthe effectiveness of vi-

sual illustrations as toolsto elucidate the benefitsand feasibility of BlueCities designs. Whetherat large public meetingsor small sessions with afew decision-makers, thegraphic analysis of a re-gion, demonstration ofhow water functions inthe environment, andbeautiful design conceptsthat we have developedand illustrated have ex-cited audiences and made

people want to work withus.

The success of our public forums in Allston, theLMA and Zakim North was primarily based onconvening multiple interest groups (including mu-nicipal officials working in environmental or plan-ning organizations, representatives from variousinstitutions and organizations, and neighborhoodresidents) to present a compelling vision of BlueCities through a variety of media. Creating andexhibiting a plan to show how the neighborhoods would look and function after Blue Redevelop-ment turned out to be the most powerful advo-cacy tool we have for this project. Compared to

economic arguments, environmental compliancedemands, and even explanations of serious publichealth issues, visual demonstrations proved vastlymore effective. We have used drawings, photo-graphs, computerized renderings, and other con-ceptual design tools. Across the board, we believe

that visual illustrations are essential to communi-cation and persuasion.

2. EVALUATE YOUR PROGRESS ANDMODIFY YOUR PROGRAM

The Template for Blue Cities Restoration pro-vides a solid outline for urban redevelopment withrestoration of watershed function. Nevertheless,specific development pressures, environmentalconditions, changing regulations, pre-existing in-frastructure conditions, the roles of key players,and many other factors will all help determine thebest way forward. In concept, the steps we took inall three study areas were similar, but the specificsvaried so greatly that in the same time period, wecould not achieve the same level of design in allthree projects. Nor did it make sense to put equaleffort into all three areas. As we worked at thesites, we were alert to differences as they emerged,became clearer, and took their own courses. Con-

Our cities must change.

We can influence how theyfunction and look, and

how we will feel in them.

34

Figure 4.1 Neighborhood residents listen intently at one of CRWAs community meetings

8/9/2019 Blue Cities Guide: Environ

blue cities guide: environmentally sensitive urban development

Documents