easygrants id: 3057 national fish and wildlife foundation · directly affect water quality, ......

of 16

Easygrants ID: 3057 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF/Legacy Grant Project ID: 2009-0061-017

Long Island Sound Futures Fund 2009 - Large Grants - Submit Final Programmatic Report (Activities)

Grantee Organization: The Nature Conservancy

Project Title: Implementing Stormwater Solutions for the Salmon River (CT)

Project Period 12/01/2009 - 06/30/2011

Award Amount $57,899.25

Matching Contributions $35,312.00

Project Location Description (from Proposal) Salmon River watershed(Middlesex, New London, Hartford, Tolland

Counties), Connecticut

Project Summary (from Proposal) Promote and implement municipal regulations and practices that most

directly affect water quality, flows, and overall health of the Salmon

River system in Connecticut. Project will host a series of workshops

with target stakeholder groups and work with two towns to guide

implementation of recommendations.

Summary of Accomplishments Through this project we a) identified and addressed barriers to revising

municipal land use policies for the protection of the Salmon River

system and b) facilitated actual regulatory changes. Land use

professionals throughout the watershed participated in technical

workshops, reviewing best practices and recommendations for specific

topics and engaging in exercises to work through challenges of

implementing recommendations in the Salmon River Watershed

Municipal Land Use Evaluation. Each workshop took participants to

nearby, real-life examples of LID installations. We also more closely

guided the pilot towns of Colchester and East Hampton to draft

regulatory changes that were tailored to the political dynamics and

institutional barriers unique to each. East Hampton adopted significant

changes to its subdivision regulations and Colchester incorporated our

technical guidance in a broad effort to revise its entire local land use

regulatory framework.

Lessons Learned Use supplementary materials. Access to supplemental materials can be

helpful to projects involving regulatory reform, particularly when there

is an education need in the stakeholder group.

Use existing models within the watershed. When looking to change

standards within municipal regulations, many officials may feel uneasy

about new ideas and question the degree to which these ideas have been

tested. One of the most effective solutions is to identify communities

nearby that use these regulatory tools, if possible.

Convene stakeholders. Changes to local regulations involve many

stakeholders; it is critical to engage them early in the process. Adapt to

evolving concerns as the project continues to unfold and change the

engagement strategy to address these concerns.

Include local engineers in discussions. In many Connecticut

municipalities it is common to use licensed engineers for professional

peer review services. When proposing amendments to technical

standards, vet them with the engineer to ensure s/he is comfortable with

the amendments.

Target existing disincentives. Identify and remove disincentives to

desired activities in existing regulations. Fixing these can be “low

hanging fruit.”

Remember contractors. Identify and promote existing opportunities for

contractors to be trained in LID practices. Participants said one of the

most significant barriers to implementing LID was educating and

training contractors who carry out the engineers’ plans.

of 16

Conservation Activities Roundtable workshops with land use professionals

Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (List of barriers to implementation)

Value at Grant Completion List vetted by stakeholders

Conservation Activities Roundtable workshops with land use professionals

Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (Input from stakeholders on how to implement

recommendations)

Value at Grant Completion Input gathered

Conservation Activities Field trips to LID sites for key implementers

Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (# of participating implementers who have seen real-

life examples of LID)

Value at Grant Completion 90%

Conservation Activities In-depth work with 2 pilot towns to facilitate implementation

Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (# towns with action plan to advance

recommendations)

Value at Grant Completion 2 towns


Progress Measures # counties/local jurisdictions adopting BMPs

Value at Grant Completion At least 4


Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (Implementation model and documented lessons

learned)

Value at Grant Completion 2 models and documented lessons

of 16

Agenda

Low Impact Development (LID) Maintenance Workshop

September 16, 2010 Angelico’s Lake House

81 North Main St., East Hampton (860) 267-1276

8:30 Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00 – 9:30 How Good BMPs Go Bad: Importance of Maintenance (Rich)

How it affects performance, practice selection, and aesthetics

9:30 – 10:00 The Daily Grind: Routine Maintenance Measures (Michelle)

What equipment is needed and what are the standard maintenance requirements

of each practice

10:00 – 10:20 Once in a Blue Moon: Long-Term (non-routine) Maintenance Measures

(Michelle)

What equipment is needed and what are the big ticket items

10:20 – 10:35 Break

10:35 – 11:00 Keeping it Green: Vegetation Management and Maintenance (Rich)

Key differences in maintaining LID practices versus conventional practices

11:00 – 11:30 Maintenance Forensics: In-class Maintenance Exercise - (Michelle)

Small group break-out session.

11:30 – 12:00 Crunching the Numbers: Maintenance Plans, Costs and Programs (Rich)

What is required, how much does this cost, and how can local governments keep

up with LID maintenance.

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch

1:00 – 1:30 Travel to Field Trip Site

1:30 – 3:00 Field Trip to Local LID Maintenance Site - All What’s been done locally and what more could be done.

Funded by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, U.S. EPA, the towns of Colchester, East Haddam,

East Hampton, Glastonbury, Haddam, Hebron, and Marlborough, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

of 16

Rich Claytor, Principal Engineer with Horsley Witten Group, Inc. has more than 25 years of practical

experience in civil and water resource engineering planning and design, construction administration, and

watershed research, education, and training. Mr. Claytor has specific expertise in water resource

program assessment, policy and evaluation, watershed planning, training and education; environmental

resource permitting; land use planning, site design and research; storm drainage, erosion/sediment

control; and construction administration. He has authored a variety of publications on watershed

planning and implementation, presented in more than 100 workshops and conferences, and designed

more than 100 major projects. Representative projects include: • Project Manager for the update to the Rhode Island Stormwater Management Manual to incorporate low

impact development techniques into the State’s stormwater permit/approval process. • Principal in Charge for the development of CNMI Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction

Contractor and Inspectors.

Michelle West, Project Engineer with Horsley Witten Group, Inc., has more than 8 years of water

resource design and assessment experience with specific expertise in low-impact development (LID),

stormwater management, and watershed planning. Ms. West is currently working with the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management and the Coastal Resources Management Council to revise

and update the current Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual to integrate

LID into both the planning and stormwater design process. She was also the principal author for the

Guam and Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Stormwater Management Manual and

has presented at stormwater and LID workshops in Guam, CNMI, and Hawaii. Other recent experience

has included performing stormwater management assessments for a number of communities in New

England and Long Island; incorporating LID practices, strategies, and standards into local ordinances

and regulations for communities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; and preparing an LID workbook

for the Hawaiian Islands.

Michael Dietz is a water resources educator, with primary responsibilities for running the CT NEMO

Program. He worked with the Connecticut NEMO program from 2005 to 2007 on projects related to

LID, and then left Connecticut in 2007 to take a position at Utah State University as an assistant

professor and extension specialist in sustainable living. In Utah Mike continued to work on stormwater

monitoring and LID, in addition to green building, energy conservation, and water harvesting. He was

director of the Utah House, a demonstration house for green building techniques.

Mike received both his Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut, focusing on stormwater

and low impact development (LID) techniques.

Shelley Green is co-director of the Lower Connecticut River Program for The Nature Conservancy, the

leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and

waters for nature and people. Specializing in conservation planning and performance measures, she has

formed a 10-town watershed partnership with multiple public and private stakeholders, led land

acquisition deals, promoted compatible land use policies and practices, and collaborated on dam

removal projects. In previous positions during her 20-year tenure with TNC, Shelley managed the Long

Island Pine Barrens program and designed and led training for domestic and international staff and

partners. She has a Masters in Environmental Studies from Yale University.

of 16

Agenda

Low Impact Development (LID) Design Workshop

September 15, 2010 Angelico’s Lake House

81 North Main St., East Hampton (860) 267-1276

8:30 Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00 – 9:05 Salmon River System Protection: Why We’re Here - TNC

9:05 – 9:15 Stormwater Quiz: Pre-Workshop Understanding

9:15 – 9:45 Fundamentals of LID - NEMO

Impacts of stormwater on streams, lakes and coastal waters. Overview of need for

balanced hydrology – why volume matters

9:45 – 10:30 Review of LID Practices: From Sites to Structures - HW

Green streets, parking lots, open space preservation, constraints and opportunities for

conservation subdivision design, resource buffers, and designing the natural system.

10:30 – 10:45 Break

10:45 – 11:30 Design Elements for Structural Controls - HW Design components for swales, bioretention and infiltration practices (calculations,

sizing, conveyance, and landscaping)

11:30 – 12:00 In-class Exercise - All Small group break-out session – choosing the right practice for your site.

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch Networking

1:00 – 1:45 Material Specifications for Structural Controls - HW Soils, underdrains, filter fabric, gravel, mulch, plants…

1:45 – 2:15 Travel to Field Trip

2:15 – 3:30 Field Trip to Local LID Case Study - All What’s been done locally and what more could be done.

3:30 – 4:00 Stormwater Quiz and What are the Barriers to Implementation Post workshop quiz and survey questionnaire of implementation barriers and

recommendations to overcome them.

Funded by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, U.S. EPA, the towns of Colchester, East Haddam, East

Hampton, Glastonbury, Haddam, Hebron, and Marlborough, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

of 16

Rich Claytor, Principal Engineer with Horsley Witten Group, Inc. has more than 25 years of practical

experience in civil and water resource engineering planning and design, construction administration, and

watershed research, education, and training. Mr. Claytor has specific expertise in water resource program

assessment, policy and evaluation, watershed planning, training and education; environmental resource

permitting; land use planning, site design and research; storm drainage, erosion/sediment control; and

construction administration. He has authored a variety of publications on watershed planning and

implementation, presented in more than 100 workshops and conferences, and designed more than 100 major

projects. Representative projects include:

• Project Manager for the update to the Rhode Island Stormwater Management Manual to incorporate

low impact development techniques into the State’s stormwater permit/approval process.

• Principal in Charge for the development of CNMI Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for

Construction Contractor and Inspectors.

Michelle West, Project Engineer with Horsley Witten Group, Inc., has more than 8 years of water resource

design and assessment experience with specific expertise in low-impact development (LID), stormwater

management, and watershed planning. Ms. West is currently working with the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management and the Coastal Resources Management Council to revise and update the current

Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual to integrate LID into both the planning and

stormwater design process. She was also the principal author for the Guam and Commonwealth of Northern

Mariana Islands (CNMI) Stormwater Management Manual and has presented at stormwater and LID workshops

in Guam, CNMI, and Hawaii. Other recent experience has included performing stormwater management

assessments for a number of communities in New England and Long Island; incorporating LID practices,

strategies, and standards into local ordinances and regulations for communities in Massachusetts and New

Hampshire; and preparing an LID workbook for the Hawaiian Islands.

Michael Dietz is a water resources educator, with primary responsibilities for running the CT NEMO Program.

He worked with the Connecticut NEMO program from 2005 to 2007 on projects related to LID, and then left

Connecticut in 2007 to take a position at Utah State University as an assistant professor and extension specialist

in sustainable living. In Utah Mike continued to work on stormwater monitoring and LID, in addition to green

building, energy conservation, and water harvesting. He was director of the Utah House, a demonstration house

for green building techniques.

Mike received both his Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut, focusing on stormwater and low

impact development (LID) techniques.

Shelley Green is co-director of the Lower Connecticut River Program for The Nature Conservancy, the leading

conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for

nature and people. Specializing in conservation planning and performance measures, she has formed a 10-town

watershed partnership with multiple public and private stakeholders, led land acquisition deals, promoted

compatible land use policies and practices, and collaborated on dam removal projects. In previous positions

during her 20-year tenure with TNC, Shelley managed the Long Island Pine Barrens program and designed and

led training for domestic and international staff and partners. She has a Masters in Environmental Studies from

Yale University.

of 16

Final Programmatic Report Narrative

Instructions: Save this document on your computer and complete the narrative in the format

provided. The final narrative should not exceed ten (10) pages; do not delete the text provided

below. Once complete, upload this document into the on-line final programmatic report task as

instructed.

1. Summary of Accomplishments

In four to five sentences, provide a brief summary of the project’s key accomplishments and outcomes that were observed

or measured.

Through this project we identified and addressed barriers to revising municipal land use policies and facilitated actual

regulatory changes for the protection of the Salmon River system. Land use professionals throughout the watershed

participated in technical workshops, reviewing best practices and recommendations for specific topics and engaging in

exercises to work through challenges of implementing recommendations in the Salmon River Watershed Municipal Land

Use Evaluation. Each workshop took participants to nearby, real-life examples of LID installations. We also more

closely guided the pilot towns of Colchester and East Hampton to draft regulatory changes that were tailored to the

political dynamics and institutional barriers unique to each. East Hampton adopted significant changes to its subdivision

regulations and Colchester incorporated our technical guidance in a broad effort to revise its entire local land use

regulatory framework.

2. Project Activities & Outcomes

Activities

Describe and quantify (using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement) the primary activities

conducted during this grant.

Briefly explain discrepancies between the activities conducted during the grant and the activities agreed upon

in your grant agreement.

We carried out all activities agreed upon in the grant agreement.

We held a series of three full-day workshops for professionals who design, review, and approve land use projects or

maintain stormwater management structures in the Salmon River watershed. Based on input from town planners, we

chose to focus two of those workshops on LID design (June 16 and September 15), and one on LID maintenance

(September 16). Splitting the topics this way allowed us to target relevant recommendations from the Salmon River

Watershed Municipal Land Use Evaluation (funded by LISFF), and to tailor messages and design exercises around those

distinct interests and concerns. Town land use staff identified the firms and individuals who most often represent

applicants for development projects in each town and promoted the workshops to them.

Sessions were led by Rich Claytor, Nathan Kelly, and Michelle West from The Horsley Witten Group, a consulting firm

with a solid understanding of natural resources and expertise in both engineering LID and land use planning, with

introductory presentations by staff from The Nature Conservancy and UConn CLEAR. Through a series of sections

participants reviewed best practices and recommendations for specific topics (e.g., stormwater management, lots/setbacks,

roads/parking). They then engaged in a hands-on exercise to work through challenges of implementing those

recommendations. For each workshop we also took a field trip to visit nearby, real-world examples of LID installations.

Slide presentations and handouts with resources were made available through a link sent to attendees.

Design workshop topics included:

Fundamentals of LID

Review of LID Practices: From Sites to Structures

Design Elements for Structural Controls

Choosing the Right Practice for Your Site: In-class Exercise

of 16

Material Specifications for Structural Controls

Field Trip to Local LID Case Studies

Stormwater Quiz and Barriers to Implementation

Maintenance workshop topics included:

How Good BMPs Go Bad: Importance of Maintenance

The Daily Grind: Routine Maintenance Measures

Once in a Blue Moon: Long-term (non-routine) Maintenance Measures

Keeping it Green: Vegetation Management and Maintenance

Maintenance Forensics: In-class Maintenance Exercise

Crunching the Numbers: Maintenance Plans, Costs, and Programs

Field Trip to Local LID Maintenance Sites

Feedback on Barriers to Implementation

In early 2010 we selected two pilot towns with which we would work closely to facilitate the implementation of

recommendations from the evaluation report. We created a simple competitive process among the towns in the watershed

by asking them to develop specific proposals. All four of the towns that comprise over 80% of the watershed area

responded, and we chose Colchester and East Hampton based on a balance of readiness and conservation need.

The project team then met with staff from each town to 1) choose a set of recommendations to pursue that would have the

most benefit and be feasible and 2) develop an implementation strategy tailored to the political dynamics and institutional

barriers unique to each. East Hampton identified a need for technical guidance targeted at specific regulatory elements.

Horsley Witten Group provided specific recommendations to help focus the Town’s efforts on code revision and drafted

amendments to key sections of local regulations related to road standards, site plan requirements, conservation

subdivisions, and parking requirements. Colchester, on the other hand, sought peer review of a comprehensive revision of

its land use policy. The Town’s land use staff developed an issue paper to identify and detail the range of issues and

regulatory measures to be considered and addressed.

Outcomes

Describe and quantify progress towards achieving the project outcomes described in your grant agreement.

(Quantify using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement or by using more relevant metrics

not included in the application.)

Briefly explain discrepancies between what actually happened compared to what was anticipated to happen.

Provide any further information (such as unexpected outcomes) important for understanding project activities

and outcome results.

All outputs and nearly all long-term outcomes agreed upon were achieved.

Workshops with engineers, town land use staff, developers, and other land use practitioners, including field trips to LID

sites, secured these results:

Engagement of key stakeholders groups (see Profile of Workshop Attendees below) (output)

List of barriers to implementation (indicator & output)

Land use commissioners more confident in recommendations (output)

Key implementers familiar with LID in practice in general, and specific knowledge on application, design,

installation, performance, and maintenance of common LID practices being incorporated in towns’ regulations

and practices (outcome)

Staff members able to critically review new technologies in projects (outcome)

Expanded regional pool of design engineers/developers with capacity to incorporate LID design (outcome)

Staff members able to critically review new technologies in projects (outcome)

Timely review and approval of projects (desired outcome over longer term)

Additional indicators of effectiveness:

o A number of participants in the Design sessions enrolled for the subsequent Maintenance session or

referred colleagues to the sessions in September

o Average Overall Workshop Score rated by participants, on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 = positive): 4.5 for LID

Design (6/16), 4.5 for LID Design (9/15), 4.0 for LID Maintenance (9/16)

of 16

o Professional planners who attended LID Design workshop received AICP Certification Management

(professional education) credits.

Through in-depth work with two pilot towns we secured these results:

Action plan in place to advance recommendations in Colchester and East Hampton, two of the four central towns

in the watershed. (output)

In addition to directed outcomes in these two towns, revised regulations and strengthened protection of Salmon

River system in at least three other towns in the watershed through technical guidance from our outreach efforts

(outcome).

Implementation model and lessons learned provided (output)

In Town of East Hampton 1) adoption of significant changes to existing provision for environmentally sensitive

subdivision design, 2) adoption of new provisions that significantly change how parking requirements are

calculated and parking areas are designed, and 3) modest reductions in recommended widths of several road types

and incorporation of a waiver process to provide the possibility of even greater reductions. Together these

regulations will better protect water quality and overall health of river system (outcomes).

Technical guidance provided within a broader effort to revise entire local regulatory framework in Town of

Colchester. This project was integrated into a much larger rewrite of the regulations that includes everything

from a completely new set of zoning districts to individual performance standards that address issues of

environmental protection, architectural design, economic development, and more. Broader effort is ongoing and

led by municipal officials (outcome).

Profile of Workshop Attendees

6/16

Design

9/15

Design

9/16

Maintenance

Total

Consulting engineers/

surveyors/architects

11 6 5 22

Town engineers 5 3 8

Town planners 5 2 7

CT DEP/UConn CLEAR 3 2 2 7

Conservation organizations 3 2 1 6

Town enforcement officers 1 2 3

Developer/builders 2 2

Town public works directors 2 2

Watershed steering committee 2 2

Unexpected Outcomes

Participants said that one of the most significant barriers to implementing LID that they had encountered was

educating and training the contractors who carry out the engineers’ plans. Because contractors typically are not

the primary contacts for town land use staff throughout the life of development projects, they would be a more

challenging stakeholder group to influence. A future strategy could be to identify and promote existing

opportunities for contractors to be trained in LID practices.

The September LID Design workshop had far fewer participants than the June workshop (10 versus 32). Because

the June session received excellent reviews, we did not conclude that there was a quality issue. Rather, the low

numbers may have been either because most of our target design/engineering firms attended in June or because of

heavy schedules typical in September.

Where the approach to East Hampton was more “surgical” in nature – identifying individual issues and addressing

each one separately and quickly -- the work in Colchester operated more on a systemic level, as part of a broader

effort to radically revise the entire local regulatory framework, and therefore the Colchester process has been

more gradual.

3. Lessons Learned

Describe the key lessons learned from this project, such as the least and most effective conservation practices or notable

aspects of the project’s methods, monitoring, or results. How could other conservation organizations adapt their projects

to build upon some of these key lessons about what worked best and what did not?

of 16

Use supplementary materials. The ability to access supplementary materials can be very helpful to projects involving

regulatory reform. Municipal officials and other stakeholders often have questions about different standards and the

consequences of implementing innovative regulatory tools and designs. In this project, a series of white papers were

developed by the Town of Colchester to introduce fundamental regulatory concepts that required “buy in” before anything

else could proceed. This is an example of identifying an education need in the stakeholder group and meeting that need

before developing other technical products.

Use existing models within the watershed. When looking to change standards within municipal regulations, many

officials may feel uneasy about new ideas and question the degree to which these ideas have been tested. One of the most

effective ways to address this issue is, if possible, to identify communities nearby that use these regulatory tools. This

technique was applied to Conservation Subdivision Design and innovative parking approaches in the Salmon River

watershed, because some communities have a track record of success with these techniques.

Convene stakeholders. Changes to local regulations inevitably will involve different stakeholders and it is critical to

engage these individuals or agencies early in the process. It is also important to adapt to evolving concerns as the project

continues to unfold and to change the engagement strategy to address these concerns. In Colchester a multi-agency

committee is being used to ensure that all key agencies are involved in a comprehensive amendment process. In East

Hampton, as concerns over minimum road widths became more of a focus, we held one-on-one discussions and made

repeated adjustments to drafts with the Director of Public Works to reach a compromise. The Town also included local

public safety officials in deliberations.

Include local engineers in discussions. In many Connecticut municipalities (as well as in other states), it is common for

municipalities to use licensed engineers for professional “peer review” services. These engineers provide technical

review of site plans on behalf of the local Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure that proposed designs are technically

sound. When proposing amendments to technical standards, it is helpful to vet these changes with the local commission’s

engineer to ensure that s/he is comfortable with the amendments. Many commissions have a great deal of trust in these

review professionals and will need to have that “buy in” before considering adopting anything new.

Target existing disincentives. Identify and remove disincentives to desired activities in existing regulations (e.g., East

Hampton’s Open Space regulations). From a technical perspective fixing these can be “low hanging fruit.”

Remember contractors. Identify and promote existing opportunities for contractors to be trained in LID practices.

Participants said that one of the most significant barriers to implementing LID that they had encountered was educating

and training the contractors who carry out the engineers’ plans. Because contractors typically are not the primary contacts

for town land use staff throughout the life of development projects, they are a more challenging stakeholder group to

influence.

4. Dissemination

Briefly identify any dissemination of lessons learned or other project results to external audiences, such as the public or

other conservation organizations.

Lessons learned and best practices from in-depth work with pilot towns distributed to land use decision makers

across watershed towns at breakfast meeting and by subsequent email. (Note that dissemination of technical

information and recommendations led to regulatory improvements beyond the two pilot towns.)

Recommendations and technical guidance provided to NEMO/UConn CLEAR staff, who also participated in the

technical workshops.

5. Project Documents

Include in your final programmatic report, via the Uploads section of this task, the following:

2-10 representative photos from the project. Photos need to have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi;

report publications, GIS data, brochures, videos, outreach tools, press releases, media coverage;

any project deliverables per the terms of your grant agreement.

POSTING OF FINAL REPORT: This report and attached project documents may be shared by the Foundation and any

Funding Source for the Project via their respective websites. In the event that the Recipient intends to claim that its final

report or project documents contains material that does not have to be posted on such websites because it is protected

of 16

from disclosure by statutory or regulatory provisions, the Recipient shall clearly mark all such potentially protected

materials as “PROTECTED” and provide an explanation and complete citation to the statutory or regulatory source for

such protection.