Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
traditional development patterns using conventional stormwater management
techniques.
Based on this recent work, EPA concludes that, in the majority of cases,
significant cost savings resulted from reduced site grading and preparation, less
stormwater infrastructure, reduced site paving, and modified landscaping. Total
capital cost savings ranged from 15 to 80 percent when using LID methods.
Furthermore, these results are likely to conservatively undercount LID benefits. In
all cases, there were benefits that this EPA study did not monetize or factor into
each project's bottom line. These benefits include:
• Improved aesthetics,
• Expanded recreational opportunities,
• Increased property values due to the desirability of
the lots and their
proximity to open space,
• Increased total number of units developed,
• Increased marketing potential, and
• Faster sales.
Using LID to Meet Regulatory Requirements
LID practices can be used to meet a variety of state and federal permit programs.
These range from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Phase I and Phase II stormwater requirements, to combined sewer overflow (CSO)
and sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) requirements. For example, many Michigan
municipalities are plagued with CSO problems as well as SSOs caused by excessive
inflow of stormwater and groundwater into the sanitary sewer system. Communities
can integrate LID practices, such as a residential rain barrel program and downspout
disconnection to their overflow control programs to help reduce stormwater inflow
into the system, thereby reducing overflows.
Additionally, cost estimates do not include any sort of monetizing of the
environmental impacts which are avoided through LID, as well as reductions in
long-term operation and maintenance costs, and/or reductions in the life cycle
costs of replacing or rehabilitating infrastructure.
Confirming EPA results, a recent report by the Conservation Research Institute
for the Illinois Conservation Foundation. ChangingCostPerceptions:AnAnalysis
ofConservationDevelopment, 2005, undertook three different types of analyses
on this cost issue—a literature review, an analysis of built-site case studies, and a
cost analysis of hypothetical conventional versus conservation design templates.
In terms of literature review, this study concludes:
• Public infrastructure costs are lower when a development is built within the
context of smart growth patterns that conserve land.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search