]

Introducing Low Impact

Development
In East Longmeadow
Prepared by

Ryan Daley
Westfield State University
2015

Page | 1

Table of Contents
Definitions 3
Abstract
5
Chapter 1: Literature Review
1.1 Introduction 6
1.1.1 Rise of Low Impact Development
6
1.1.2 Overview of Low Impact Development
6
1.1.3 Conventional Stormwater Management and CSOs
6
1.2 The Effects of Human Activity on the Hydrologic Cycle. 8
1.2.1 Hydrology 8
1.2.2 Protecting the Watershed
8
1.3 LID as an Alternative to Storm Water Management
9
1.3.1 Three Methods of LID 9
1.3.2 LID v. Conventional Stormwater Management 10
1.4 Storm Water Best Management Practices
10
1.4.1 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 10
1.4.2 Bioretention/Rain Garden
11
1.4.3 Grass Swales
12
1.4.4 Vegetated Rood Cover 12
1.4.5 Permeable Pavements 12
1.4.6 Capture and Re-Use
13
1.4.7 Evaluating Effectiveness of Stormwater BMPs 13
1.5 Implementing Low Impact Development in East Longmeadow 15
1.5.1 Low Impact Development in Pioneer Valley
15
1.5.2 Including LID in Subdivision Rules and Regulations
16
1.5.3 Conclusions 17
Chapter 1 References 18
Chapter 2: Research
2.1 Methodology 19
2.2 Obstacles and Barriers to the Implementation of LID
20
2.2.1 Cost 20
2.2.2 Maintenance
21
2.2.3 Winter
22
2.3 Interviews
22
2.3.1 Department of Public Works 22
2.3.2 Fire Department 23
2.3.3 Police Department
24
2.4 Analysis of Subdivision Rules and Regulations
24
2.4.1 Model Bylaw
24

Page | 2

2.4.2 Comparison of Performance Standards

2.5 Recommendations 27
2.5.1 Street Widths
27
2.5.2 Recommended Performance Standards
2.5.3 Best Management Practices 29
2.5.4 Maintenance Plan 30
2.6 Conclusions 30
Chapter 2 References 31

25
28

Page | 3

Definitions
1. Best Management Practices (BMPs)- activities, practices, facilities,
and/or procedures that when implemented will reduce or prevent
pollutants in discharges
2. Rain Water Harvesting/Capture and Re-Use- To capture and store
rainwater for later use.
3. Grass Swales- a stable turf, parabolic or trapezoidal channel used for
water quality or to convey stormwater runoff, which does not rely on
the permeability of the soil as a pollutant removal mechanism.
4. Permeable Pavement- a permeable pavement surface with a stone
reservoir underneath. The reservoir temporarily stores surface runoff
before infiltrating it into the subsoil.
5. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)- a type of sewer system that
collects sewage and surface runoff in a single pipe system.
6. Clean Water Act of 1972- the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
enacted in 1972, by Public Law 92-500, and amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of
pollutants to Waters of the United States unless the discharge is in
accordance with an NPDES permit. For East Longmeadow, this permit is
the MS4 permit.
7. Bioretention Garden/Rain Garden- a garden which takes advantage
of rainfall and stormwater runoff in its design and plant selection.
8. Vegetated Roof- a roof of a building that is partially or completely
covered with vegetation and a growing medium, planted over a
waterproofing membrane.
9. Post-Development Curve Number (CN)- developed by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and is a very common tool for
estimating runoff volumes.
10.
Time of Concentration (TC)- time of concentration is the time
it takes for one for a drop of water to travel from the original site, to its
discharge point
11.
Peak Discharge Rate- the rate of discharge of a volume of
water passing a given location
12.
Infiltration- to pass into or through (a substance) by filtering or
permeating
13.
Stormwater Runoff- part of precipitation which travels across a
surface to the storm drain system or receiving waters.

Page | 4

14.
Impervious Surface- any man-made or modified surface that
prevents or significantly reduces the entry of water into the underlying
soil, resulting in runoff from the surface in greater quantities and/or at
an increased rate, when compared to natural conditions prior to
development.
15.
Non-Point Source Pollutants- refers to both water and
air pollution from diffuse sources.

16.
Zero Net Increase- no net increase in the use of water from
pre-development hydrology, to post-development hydrology.
17.
Retention- the ability to hold rain water.
18.
Detention- water that is flowing on the surface, and has not
reached the channel
19.

Page | 5

Abstract
Located in Hampden County, East Longmeadow is a community 13.4 square
miles in size with a population of about 15,800 people since 2013. East
Longmeadow currently does not implement Low Impact Development in the
Towns subdivision rules and regulations, but they wish to do so in the near
future. This paper will explore the possibility of implementing Low Impact
Development in the Town as a means of controlling storm water runoff
volumes, and discharge rates. Low Impact Development is in no way a
means of replacing current storm water management practices, but instead
offers a more environmentally friendly way of managing storm water. Many
traditional storm water management practices work to carry storm water
away from where water hits the ground; this method is successful at doing
so, but also carries many pollutants in the water. Low Impact Development
works to keep storm water onsite through a wide range of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that are discussed in this paper. Keeping storm water on
site allows for fewer pollutants in the water, and uses natural methods to
manage storm water. This paper will discuss the use of each method, and
how effective each method is at managing storm water at the source.
Planners and Government Agencies are promoting Low Impact Development
across the country since the emergence of this fairly new practice in the
1990s. All across the country cities and towns are adopting Low Impact
Development practices, and cities and towns surrounding East Longmeadow
have adopted Low Impact Development as well. This paper will look at other
cities and towns near East Longmeadow, who are leaders of this new
approach.

Page | 6

1 Literature Review

Introduction
The Rise of Low Impact Development
In the United States, the term Low Impact Development has been
around for a little over 20 years. Even though this practice is still fairly new,
it has surely made an impact across the country. We first heard of Low
Impact Development from Prince Georges County, Maryland in the early
1990s. At the time, a few Low Impact Development projects were taking
place here. Shortly after, we began to see Low Impact Development Projects
sprouting across the country.
Overview of Low Impact Development
Low Impact Development (LID) can be defined as a land development
strategy for managing storm water at the source with decentralized microscale control measures (Ahiablame et al. 2012). Or it may be defined as;
integration of green space, native landscaping, natural hydrologic functions,
and various other techniques to generate less runoff from developed
land(NRDC 1999). I would personally define Low Impact Development as an
alternative solution to reducing runoff volume and non-point source (NPS)
pollution through on-site, natural, storm water management practices.
LID has goals that should be considered when implementing any LID
practices. Not all goals can by achieve, and not all goals may be quantifiable.
The goals are to serve as an outline or guideline for a successful LID practice.
The first goal is zero net increase; to build on a parcel of land without any net
increase in water use beyond the natural hydrologic cycle (Cahill 2012). This
idea of zero net increase is nearly impossible, and unrealistic with Americas
current ecological footprint. Much of LID is about the thought of reducing the
impact on our local watersheds. Zero net increase is a utopian view of this
thought; where we do not impact our watersheds at all.
A second goal of LID is to minimize the need for paving, curb, gutter,
pipe system, and inlet structures in subdivisions. Instead, LID can be used to
reduce construction and maintenance costs (Ahiablame et al. 2012). The
impervious surfaces that are constructed add to the total runoff that LID
seeks to decrease. A third goal of LID is to reduce runoff volume by
infiltration to groundwater, evapotranspiration, and finding beneficial uses
for water rather than exporting it as waste (NRDC 1999). This paper will
discuss this goal in more depth later on.

Page | 7

Conventional Stormwater Management and CSOs

Along any street you will find the ordinary steel grates called catchbasins that serve as drainage for rainwater. Underneath the catch-basins are
miles of pipes that discharge the stormwater to an outfall at a nearby
waterbody. All the dirt and chemical pollutants from the streets are washed
away into these stormwater pipes and flow into our local waterways. All of
these pollutants, called non-point source (NPS) pollutants, come from our
cities, streets, front lawns, and more. These pollutants deteriorate the water
quality and slowly kill the ecosystems of the waterway. This is where LID
steps in with an alternative solution. LID seeks to keep stormwater onsite,
reducing the amount of runoff and NPS pollutants that run through the
underground stormwater pipe system. Through infiltration or capture of rain
water we can keep water on site, and decrease not only runoff and NPS
pollutants, but also decrease the peak discharge rate of rain water into our
water ways (Cahill 2012)
Conventional storm water management does not allow for infiltration
or removal of NPS pollutants, and the peak discharge rate will be much
higher than for an undeveloped parcel of land. The peak discharge rate is the
volume of water that is being discharged. If you look at Figure-1, you can
see the difference of peak discharge rate from an undeveloped parcel land
(No pipe system) to a developed parcel of
land (pipe system).
Our conventional
storm water
management systems are effective
in many ways, and serve their
purpose well. The intent of
conventional practices is to create
efficient drainage systems, which
will prevent lot flooding,
promote good drainage
and quickly convey
runoff to a BMP or
Stream (Low Impact
Development Center). These systems will never be replaced by LID; although
LID is shown to be effective at managing storm water as well, LID practices
cannot manage the high capacities of stormwater like our conventional
systems can. This paper will discuss where LID is effective, and how effective
each practice is.
Another form of conventional storm water management is a combined
pipe system called Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). Many older cities,
mostly along the east coast, have large CSO systems that are built to handle
the citys sewer and stormwater combined. Many cities are trying to from
CSO systems to separate systems, but doing so requires a lot of money to
build and replace underground pipe systems (Cahill 2012). The consequence

Page | 8

of CSO systems is that when it overflows, it would often times were

discharged into waterways. There are two major issues with CSO systems;
the combined sewer discharge is polluting waters, and that we can use and
re-use rainwater. Combining rainwater with sewage, then dumping it into
waterways causes a lot of contamination and pollution.
In the Pioneer Valley, many communities still have CSO outfalls that have not
been eliminated. To comply with the Clean Water Act, Agawam, Chicopee,
Holyoke, Ludlow, Palmer, South Hadley, Springfield, and West Springfield and
have goals to eliminate CSOs in their community. A total of 99 out of 163
CSO outfalls in the Pioneer Valley region have been eliminated. The
communities who still have outfalls face huge costs in order to eliminate CSO
outfalls (PVPC 2014).

The Effects of Human Activity on the Hydrologic

Cycle.
Hydrology
There is a dramatic difference between the hydrology of an
undeveloped parcel of land, and a developed parcel of land. When we began
Large
Small Storm
to build our cities and towns we gave no thought to the natural environment,
Storm
and we began to exploit our water resources without consideration (Cahill
2012). The alteration of our natural environment due to urbanization leads to
increased runoff rates and volume, decreased infiltration, decreased
groundwater recharge and base flow, and deterioration of water quality
(Ahiablame et al. 2012). naturally, rain water is not carried away from the
site where the water hits the ground. Some rainwater does naturally runoff
downhill, but most water is absorbed into the ground, and about half of the
water absorbed will return to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration.
Rainwater that is naturally absorbed into the ground will eventually, and
gradually, discharges into local watersheds. The effect that humans have on
our hydrology and watersheds can be detrimental. Studies had taken place
to try and estimate how much humans can affect watersheds. It has been
shown that a watershed may start showing the effects of development at
10% imperviousness, and that the effects become worse and more apparent
as imperviousness grows. (Farr 2007) Just thinking of any city or town, we
know that any city or town easily has more than 10% impervious cover, what
will this mean for the future of hydrology?
Protecting the Watershed
The difficulty comes with finding a balance between LID practices and
more impervious cover in new developments. We want to minimize further
effects on the watershed, however not everyone is in favor of LID and
minimizing impervious cover. People need their cars, wide roadways to drive
them on, and long driveways for privacy and status. There is a demand for

Page | 9

more development and more impervious cover. What we can do is use LID to
minimize harmful effects on the watershed, and work to reverse the trends of
urbanization. LID mimics natural processes that will not harm the watershed
and result in clean water, green neighborhoods, and a better quality of life
(NRDC 1999).
In our driveways we like to wash our cars, wash our patios and houses.
In the city gas, oil, and other fluids from our cars drip onto the pavement. On
the sidewalks people litter, dump out unwanted beverages, and leave
cigarette butts on the ground. Where do all of these things end up? They are
washed away into underground storm water systems, and eventually
discharge into our waterways. Runoff collects all of these NPS pollutants, and
washes them away. These are the reasons why LID works to reduce runoff
and NPS pollutants. Now more than ever, we need to protect our watersheds
from harmful effects. Many of our river, ponds, and lakes are sources of
drinking water. Protecting these sources should be a top priority.
In 1972 an important act was passed to do just this, protect our
watersheds and waterways. We rely on much of our waterways for drinking
water, and pollution is resulting in lower quality of water. The Clean Water
Act of 1972 is a federal act that establishes structure for regulating discharge
of pollutants. The CWA makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutants from a
point source, into navigable waters (EPA 2015). The CWA is a major piece of
legislation that has changed much of how we handle storm water and sewer
water today. The CWA is the reason why many cities are working to eliminate
combined sewer overflow (CSO) pipe systems.

LID as an Alternative to Storm Water Management

Three Methods of LID
As mentioned previously in the introduction of this paper, the third goal
of LID is to reduce runoff volume by infiltration to groundwater,
evapotranspiration, and finding beneficial uses for water rather than
exporting it as waste (NRDC 1999).This goal includes the three methods that
LID uses to manage storm water. These three methods are; infiltration,
capture and re-use, and evapotranspiration. These three methods can be
broken up into individual LID practices that will be discussed in the next
section. Each of the methods are natural, and do not harm the watershed.
Infiltration occurs when rain water naturally absorbs into the soil. The
water travels through small channels that flow into the watershed, or
recharge the aquifer. While the water is traveling underground, the soil
removes pollutants and metals that could be harmful to the aquifer. The soil
acts as a natural filter, and removes most of the pollutants. This method is

P a g e | 10

almost always very effective and managing rainwater. Infiltration may not be
as effective during large storms where flooding occurs. In the case of
flooding, runoff occurs and water travels elsewhere above ground
(Ahiablame et al. 2012).
Capture and re-use of rainwater is an effective method that includes
collecting the rainwater from rooftops, and using the rainwater instead of
washing it down the drain. This method can also be referred to as rain water
harvesting. Rain water can be re-used and recycled over and over again. We
can use rainwater to water our plants, to flush our toilets, and many other
uses. Capturing rainwater can be very effective at eliminating runoff from
rooftops. This method can be less effective when the barrel or cistern is full.
Evapotranspiration is a method that involves vegetation. Our trees and
gardens absorb the rainwater through their roots, and then over time the
water is sent back into the atmosphere. This method can be effective during
small rain storms. Much like infiltration, the method will be less effective
during large rain storms (Cahill 2012).

Each method effectively eliminates runoff and NPS pollutants.

However, there are times where each method will not be 100% effective at
eliminating runoff or NPS pollutants. In large storms, flooding can occur
easily, presenting a need for conventional storm water management
practices. LID cannot manage storm water alone, it must work hand and
hand with our conventional systems.
LID v. Conventional Stormwater Management
There are advantages and disadvantages to both LID and conventional
stormwater management. Although many people are in favor of LID
practices, we cannot eliminate conventional practices. Conventional
practices still play a large part in LID and storm water management. Without
conventional practices flooding would occur more frequently. Flooding can
cause a lot of damage in a community. However, conventional practices do
not promote infiltration, groundwater recharge, or water quality
improvement; the primary focus of conventional practices is to remove storm
water from an area as quickly as possible (Ahiablame et al. 2012). The pipes
are large enough to accommodate even the heaviest of rain. We need these
systems to prevent flooding and water damage. We also need LID to work
with the conventional practices to reduce the amount of runoff and NPS
pollutants. Conventional storm water management cannot reduce runoff, or

P a g e | 11

remove pollutants unless the water is treated. If you refer to Table-1, the
advantage and disadvantages of each are listed.

Storm Water Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs)
When dealing with storm water, the term Best Management Practices
refers to practices that are most effective at reducing runoff, and eliminating
water pollutants. In LID there is a list of many best management practices
(BMPs) that can be used in any region. There is a national menu of storm
water best management practices. You can find this list on the Environment
Protection Agencys website (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/)
along with other helpful information. This section will discuss some of the
common storm water BMPs.

P a g e | 12

Advanta
Natural
discharge into
ges
watersheds.
Removal of NPS
pollutants
Reduces runoff
Green solution to storm
Low Impact
water management.
Development
Recharge groundwater
Infiltration and
evapotranspiration
Less costly to construct
or maintain.
Prevents flooding
Can handle large
capacities of rain water
Efficient at managing rain

Conventional

Management

Table-1: Advantages and

Disadvantages of Low Impact
Development, and Convention
Bioretention/Rain
Gardens
Management.

Disadvantag
Not es
always 100%
effective
Some practices are more
effective than others
Many practices cannot
handle large quantities
May require more work to
maintain
Can be difficult to
implement
Peak discharge rate in
much higher of a natural
landscape
Not infiltration,
groundwater recharge, or
removal of pollutants.
Routes rain water offsite
High costs to construct
Harms watershed

Bioretention cells are vegetated depressional areas that are designed

to capture storm water and runoff through absorption and
evapotranspiration. Bioretention facilities are less expensive to construct
than conventional practices (Ahiablame 2012). Bioretention cells serve as
filters for the rainwater, removing pollutants and other unwanted elements.
There are six typical components found in bioretention cells:

Grass Buffer Strips- reduce runoff velocity and filter particulate matter.
Sand Bed- provides aeration and drainage of the planting soil and
assists in the flushing of pollutants from the soil materials.
Ponding Area- provides storage of excess runoff and facilitates the
settling of particulates and evaporation of excess water.
Organic Layer- Performs the function of decomposition of organic
material by providing a medium for biological growth (such as
microorganisms) to degrade petroleum-based pollutants. It also filters
pollutants and prevents soil erosion.
Planting Soil- Provides the area for storm water storage and nutrient
uptake by plants. The planting soils contain come clays which adsorb
pollutants such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals and nutrients

P a g e | 13

Vegetation (Plants) - Functions in the removal of water through

evapotranspiration and pollutant removal through nutrient cycling (Low
Impact Development Center).

The type of Bioretention media used (i.e. kinds of soils and plants) can
largely determine the performance of the Bioretention cell. One example is
sand, sand is shown to effectively remove pollutants, but over time the sand
decreases in efficiency because of the loss in retention capacity. Choosing
Bioretention media carefully will determine how effective the Bioretention
cell is. Other than media, the maintenance of the cells is a key to the
performance of the cell (Ahiablame 2012).
Grass Swales
Grass swales are generally open channel systems that reduce the
velocity of runoff and manage rain water through infiltration. Rain water is
naturally absorbed into the ground and either recharge the groundwater, or
end up discharging into the watershed. Grass swales are most efficient in
smaller drainage areas with mildly sloping topography. The channels allow
for pooling of water, much like Bioretention, and acts as storage of water for
infiltration. Grass swales are much less expensive than conventional storm
water management practices. Conventional systems cost approximately $40$50 per running foot. This is three times as expensive as the cost of
constructing grass swales (Low Impact Development Center). Grass swales
typically consist of only grass, but can be just as efficient as other infiltrating
practices.
Vegetated Roof Cover
Vegetated roof cover, also commonly referred to as green roofs, are an
effective way of reducing runoff from rooftops. Not only are green roofs
effective at reducing runoff, but green roofs can also extend the life of a
rooftop. The thickness of the vegetated roof will largely determine the
efficiency and performance of the rooftop. A rooftop with 6 inches of soil may
perform better than a rooftop with 3 inches of soil. Green roofs require flat
rooftops in order to be efficient. A sloped rooftop may not be easy to
maintain. Green roofs are made up of different layers. These layer are; a
waterproofing membrane, a protection layer, a coarse-grained drainage
medium, a root-permeable nonwoven separation geotextile, a fin-grained

P a g e | 14

engineered growth medium layer, and a vegetation layer (Cahill 2012).

These layers are essential to the performance of green roofs. The
performance of green roofs decreases with increasing rainfall. When a
rooftop reaches its capacity, rainwater turns into runoff. Increased soil depth
will help with the performance of green roofs (Dietz 2007).
Permeable Pavements
Permeable pavements reduce the amount of impervious surface by
allowing water to infiltrate through the pavement. Permeable pavements are
a great solution to the issue of growing impervious surfaces; however,
permeable pavements come with many concerns. The first concern is that
permeable pavements should not be used in high traffic areas such as
parking lots and sidewalks. Another concern is that permeable pavements
are more costly than asphalts (Low Impact Development Center). One other
main concern with permeable pavements is the performance during winter
times. Although the pavement can be plowed, the concern is if the pores will
become clogged or frozen, preventing infiltration (Dietz 2007). Although
there are many concerns, there is no doubt that permeable pavements are
very efficient at managing storm water. There are 5 main types of permeable
pavements; pervious bituminous pavement, pervious concrete, pervious
paver blocks, reinforced turf and gravel, and clear binder pavements. A
stone bed can be designed to control overflow, meaning there is no flooding
with permeable pavements (Cahill 2012).
Capture and Re-Use
Capture and re-use, also called rain water harvesting, is the act of
capturing and storing runoff primarily from rooftops. The gutter systems
carry the water to a rain barrel or cistern that stores the water until it is used.
The water can be used for irrigation, or other non-potable needs (Cahill
2012). the rain water that is stored can be used for a wide variety of things,
from flushing toilets, to irrigation, or for A.C. heating and cooling units. Reusing rain water will reduce the amount of municipal water use. Capture and
re-use can be used in a residential or commercial setting. Rainwater
harvesting requires homeowners maintenance and use in order or the
practice to be efficient. Many homeowners may have little to no interest in
rain water harvesting; leaving rain water harvesting among the least used
practice.

P a g e | 15

Evaluating Effectiveness of Storm Water BMPs

There are four hydrological functions that should be considered when
evaluating the effectiveness of storm water BMPs. These functions are.

Post-Development Curve Number (CN) - the runoff curve number

was developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
and is a very common tool for estimating runoff volumes. (Cahill
2012)
Time of Concentration (TC)- time of concentration is the time it
takes for one for a drop of water to travel from the original site,
to its discharge point.
Retention- the ability to hold rain water.
Detention- water that is flowing on the surface, and has not
reached the channel (Low Impact Development Center).

Table-2 will look at LID practices, and the performance of each in the
four hydrological functions. There are more LID practices listed in this table
that may not be listed above. Many of the practices fall under the practices
that are discussed above.

Table-2 Low Impact Hydrologic Design

and Analysis Components (Low Impact
Development Center)

About half of the LID practices have lower post-development curve

numbers (CN). Part of the goal of LID is to mimic the pre-development
natural hydrology. This means that a lower runoff curve number, or lower

P a g e | 16

post development runoff, is most favorable in any LID practice. Many of the
LID practice have higher time of concentration (Tc) because of the natural
infiltration and discharge, as opposed to conventional systems. This is
something that we should look for in an LID practice. Increased time of
concentration is best for a natural discharge. With the conventional practices
we see very high discharge rates after a storm, but with LID practices we see
lower and gradual discharge rate, mimicking the natural hydrology. About
half of the practices result is retention after a rain storm. Retention is not a
bad thing is LID, retention means that the ground is holding the water, and
that it will either infiltrate, or will be absorbed by vegetation, and be sent
back to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration. Detention is another
value to look for when evaluating LID practices. Detention leads to increased
runoff. In Table-2 we can see three x marks under detention, two of them
are for water storage. Storing water does not lead to runoff. The third x is
next to Flatten slopes on swale; there is nowhere for water to pool for
infiltration, this leads to increased runoff.
Low Impact Development practices offer water quality treatment
through runoff volume control. LID practices can be very efficient at
removing pollutants through infiltration. With increased time of concentration
(TC) and decreased flow velocity, LID practices can best remove pollutants
from rain water runoff (Low Impact Development Center 2000). Each LID
practice is going to perform differently, and some are better or worse than
others.

Implementing Low Impact Development in East

Longmeadow
Low Impact Development in Pioneer Valley
After the adoption of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established to
implement the Act by controlling pollution entering waterways. The system
has grown to establish regulation to control discharges by publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) and discharges associated with storm water runoff.
These regulations were administered in two phases. The first phase is for
municipalities whose storm sewer system (formally known as Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems or MS4s) serves a larger population. Phase 2
is for municipalities with MS4s that serve smaller populations. The first
NPDES permit was issued to 22 communities in the Pioneer Valley in 2003

P a g e | 17

(PVPC 2014). The communities are working to follow the regulations of the
NPDES permit. Table-3 below displays each of the 22 communities, and how
they comply with the regulations. The table also shows if the community has
LID practices implemented, or have plans to implement LID practices.

Table-3 2003 NPDES

Requirements by Community
(PVPC 2014)

P a g e | 18

Table-3 (Continued) 2003 NPDES

Requirements by Community (PVPC
2014)

One of the 22 communities listed in Table-3 is East Longmeadow. East

Longmeadow has met all of the standards of the NPDES checklist, but LID is
not mentioned in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. In East
Longmeadows Storm Water Rules and Regulations we may find promotion
for LID, but not regulations that implement LID. Many communities are in the
same situation as East Longmeadow, and meet each of the standards except
LID implementation; Hadley, Holyoke, Ludlow, North Hampton, South Hadley,
Southampton, Southwick, Westfield, and Wilbraham. Towns such as
Belchertown and Longmeadow have LID implemented in their subdivision
rules and regulations. East Longmeadow should use Belchertown and
Longmeadow as examples for implementing LID in East Longmeadow.
Including LID in Subdivision Rules and Regulations
Belchertown subdivision rules and regulations require that subdivision
designs meet a list of nine storm water standards. Some of these standards
include:

No new storm water outfalls may discharge untreated storm water

directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the commonwealth
of Massachusetts
Storm water management system must be designed so that postdevelopment peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development
discharge rates.

P a g e | 19

Storm water management systems must be designed to remove 80%

of the average annual load of total suspended solids.
Storm water discharges from areas with higher potential pollutant
loads require the use of specific storm water management BMPs.

Longmeadow subdivision rules and regulations also require the same nine
standards that Belchertown does. Comparing Belchertown and Longmeadow
subdivision rules and regulations, the standards read exactly the same word
for word. Why is this? Will East Longmeadow adopt the same standards as
Longmeadow and Belchertown?
East Longmeadow storm water rules and regulations require that no
natural waterway shall be altered or obstructed in such a way as to reduce or
increase the natural run-off capacity, unless substitute means of run-off are
provided. The rules and regulations do not have any standards or regulations
that must be met for LID storm water management. But rather suggests that
the natural hydrology is left undisturbed.
The goal of this paper is to ignite change to subdivision rules and
regulations for adoption of LID practices. Municipalities in Massachusetts are
required to comply with a number of state and federal laws that require
municipalities to address the impacts of post-development storm water
runoff quality and NPS pollutants (MACP). It will take time for East
Longmeadow to adopt these changes, and to see the positive effect on our
watershed.
Conclusions
We have many choices between different LID practices, and each is
efficient in their own way. All of the LID practices mentioned in this paper will
help to reverse urbanization, and mimic pre-development hydrology. LID can
make a significant difference on our watershed in East Longmeadow. By
implementing storm water standards we can begin to control runoff rates
and volumes, and also begin to reduce NPS pollutants from contaminating
our watershed.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 was a major piece of legislation
that has changed the way we think of storm water management. Without
CWA we would not have the LID practices that are implemented nation-wide
today. East Longmeadow had met all of the standards of the NPDES permit;
all that is left to do is implement Low Impact Development BMPs.

P a g e | 20

Chapter 1 References
Ahiablame, Laurent M., Bernard A. Engel, and Indrajeet Chaubey. Effectiveness of
Low Impact
Development Practices: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research.
Springer Science and
Business Media. 2012.
Cahill, Thomas H. Low Impact Development and Sustainable Storm water
Management, First Edition.
Published John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2012.
Dietz, Michael E. Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of Current Research
and
Recommendations for Future Directions. Springer Science and Business Media.
2007.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Summary of the Clean Water Act. 2015.
<http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act>
Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Wiley. 2007. 108.
Low Impact Development Center.Low Impact Development (LID): A Literature
Review. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). Model Low Impact Development (LID)
Bylaw.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Storm water Strategies: Community
Responses to Runoff Pollution. Chapter 12. 1999.
<http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap12.asp>
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. Pioneer Valley Green Infrastructure Plan. 2014.
Roseen, Robert M., Thomas P. Ballestero, James J. Houle, Pedro Avelleneda, Robert
Wildey, and Joshua
Briggs. Storm Water Low-Impact Development, Conventional Structural, and
Manufactured Treatment
Strategies for Parking Lot Runoff: Performance Evaluations Under Varied Mass
Loading Conditions.

P a g e | 21
Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2006.

More Runoff
Volume

Lower and
Less Rapid
Discharge

2 Research

Methodology
In order to better understand the general thoughts, beliefs, and
concerns of the stakeholders involved, I have conducted interviews with key
employees of the town and others. In the interviews I asked generalized,
unbiased questions, in hope to lead a conversation where I can learn the
most about how the person feels about Low Impact Development. For my
research I have also conducted an analysis of the current subdivision rules
and regulations for East Longmeadow against a model LID bylaw. This
analysis is to better visualize where the East Longmeadow Planning Board
can improve, or add to the current subdivision rules and regulations.

P a g e | 22

Obstacles and Barriers to the Implementation of LID

Cost
The cost of building a non-structural stormwater BMP can often
determine whether a municipality will encourage LID or not. Many believe
that these practices can cost more than the traditional stormwater
management practices. Often times stormwater BMPs cost less than
conventional stormwater management. The construction costs are by far less
costly that conventional stormwater management; however, costs related to
maintenance may be equally, or more costly depending on the practice.
Practices such as capture and re-use will actually save anyone money,
whether the practice is used in a home or commercial/business setting.
Capture and re-use decreases the amount of municipal water that is used,
saving the business or homeowner money in the long run.
The use of Low Impact Development during and after construction will
most definitely save a municipality hundreds of thousands of dollars in
construction costs. All practices except for permeable pavements will money.
Permeable pavements cost much more to construct (per square foot) than
asphalt. Permeable pavement can cost 50% more, or higher, than regular
asphalts. (MAPC)
Table-4 below shows a case from Naperville, Illinois that shows a
comparison of the costs for the construction of conventional practices,
versus the costs for the construction of LID practices. The construction area
is a 55-acre corporate campus. For stormwater BMPs, the company used a
mixture of bioretention gardens, grass swales, and other infiltration

techniques in parking lots. (EPA)

P a g e | 23

Table-4: Sample Costs. (EPA)

From Table-4 we can see that there is a dramatic cost savings with
LID. I would like to point out that there is minimal savings with stormwater
management. Stormwater management is the construction of the individual
practices. The total cost saving with LID is $461,510, almost half of one
million dollars. From this table we can conclude that there is dramatic saving
with LID.
In many other cases we can see even larger cost savings. The EPA has
also gathered information for about 12 other construction projects where
there was a cost comparison of conventional development versus LID. The
graph I have created below is gathered from the data the EPA has provided
about other cases of cost saving with LID. In this graph we can see the
difference between the cost of conventional development, shown in blue,
and the cost of LID, shown in red. For almost all cases, LID was less costly
than conventional development. Only one case in this graph show LID as

P a g e | 24

being more costly, this is the case labeled Kensington.

Maintenance
Stormwater BMPs such as bioretention gardens, grass swales, and
Graph-1- to
Data
collected by
vegetated roofs require maintenance in order for the practice
continue
EPA
being effective. The maintenance can be labor intensive, and require lots of
manual work. To keep up with the appearance, and the effectiveness of a
stormwater BMP, there needs to be regular maintenance.
When considering the construction of a stormwater BMP, many people
may have concerns regarding the maintenance. When there is no regular
maintenance, the garden will begin to lose its effectiveness. Overgrowth,
erosion, loss of valued vegetation, growth of unwanted weeds; these are just
some of the things that can begin to happen to a garden when it is not
maintained. Homeowners may have concerns for the aesthetics of their
neighborhood if the gardens are not well kept.

Winter
In New England we can experience problems with infiltration during the
winter months. When the ground is frozen, there is less infiltration occurring.
Studies have shown that BMPs such as rain gardens or grass swales will still

P a g e | 25

allow for infiltration, but infiltration will not be at the best performance. We
should also expect trouble with permeable pavements during the winter
months. Permeable pavements rely on the pores of the pavement for
infiltration, and when these pores are frozen with ice, the infiltration
decreases. Sanding and plowing permeable pavements also present another
concern; these pavements cannot be sanded because the sand will become
stuck in the pores, further decreasing the infiltration.

Interviews
To address the barriers and obstacle to LID, I needed to understand
more about the thoughts and beliefs of the stakeholders involved with the
implementation of LID in East Longmeadow. The Department of Public Works,
Fire Department, and Police Department are the stakeholders involved; I was
able to interview a key employee from each department to hear their
thoughts.
Department of Public Works
When I first mentioned Low Impact Development to the Superintendent
of Public Works, He continued to listen while he pulled out a very thick print
out of a slideshow presentation that talked about LID and stormwater BMPs.
He knew a lot about LID and began to tell me about what he knew, and how
it works.
When he was asked about his thoughts on LID, his initial response was
that LID is a certainly a trending topic in communities. His general thoughts
about Low Impact Development are positive, and he believes that it is overall
a good concept. Low impact development looks good, but comes with some
concerns.
The main concerns from Public Works are Maintenance, Feasibility, and
Cost. In the previous section I mentioned maintenance as an obstacle of LID,
there is a lot of manual labor needed to maintain many of the stormwater
BMPs. Maintenance is a concern because public works may not have the time
to take care of all gardens and swales that are constructed. Time is money,
and this brings us to the next concern.
The cost to maintain the gardens and swales is another concern. The
cost of employing the workers to keep up with the maintenance, and the cost
for other needs can become costly to the Public Works. The cost of

P a g e | 26

constructing these areas is much less costly that conventional management,

but the cost of maintenance, may be the same or more than conventional
stormwater management. If a subdivision is privately owned, then the costs
of maintenance can be even higher.
The next concern of the public works is the feasibility. During winter
months infiltration can be at a minimum because of the frozen ground, or
blocked pores if there are permeable pavements. The Superintendent of
Public Works specifically mentioned the difficulty in implementing permeable
pavement in roadways. Under slippery conditions, the Public Works cannot
lay down sand on permeable pavements because it will block the pores that
allow for infiltration.
Fire Department
My first question to the Chief of Fire was how much do you know about
LID? He replied with not much. I began to tell the Chief everything I could in
a brief summary. He knew what I was talking about after I mentioned grass
swales. He shared some of his experiences with grass swales and what he
knew.
I then asked him what his general thought were about LID. He said that
he would have no issues with LID, and had only positive things to say about
LID. As far as a risk to public safety, the Chief did not feel that this would be
an issue with public safety.

P a g e | 27

My next question to the Chief was regarding the paved street width as
listed in the subdivision rules and regulations, and how he would feel about a
reduction to the paved width. I asked this question because a decrease in the
paved width of a street would mean less impervious surfaces and less
stormwater runoff. Not only would a decreased road width mean less
impervious surfaces, but a decreased road width allows for a better and
more attractive neighborhood. Decreased road width means larger front

yards, and a more pleasing aesthetic. See Table-5 that displays the table
that is found in the subdivision rules and regulations.
Table-5: Paved road width as found in
the subdivision rules and regulations.

The Chief of Fire replied that he would have no problem with a

decreased road width and actually encourages a decreased road width. In
some recent subdivisions, the fire department allowed for a paved width of
24-feet. The Chief of Fire would have no objection to a decreased road width.
From outrigger to outrigger on each side of the fire engine, otherwise
known as the stabilizers, the total width is 18-feet. If the road width is 24feet, this leaves 6-feet for a car to pass. In most situations the car will not be
able to pass, but for emergencies the road can be blocked. The Chief of Fire
has no problem with blocking the road during emergencies.

Police Department
The first question I asked the police officer was how much did he know about
LID? He replied with not much. I then began to explain what LID is in a brief
summary. After hearing about LID, the general thoughts about LID were positive,
and also believed that LID is a great concept. I mentioned grass swales as
depressional channels that are typically found along roads and in parking lots, this
caught the attention of the officer.

P a g e | 28
The only concern was about the grass swales. If grass swales were to be
constructed along the sides of roads, there would need to be sidewalks. The general
concern is the safety of pedestrians near the grass swales. If the grass swales were
to be constructed without sidewalks; pedestrians would have to either walk in the
road, or in the swale. Having sidewalks would increase the safety because
pedestrians would have a designated place to walk.

Analysis of Subdivision Rules and Regulations

Model Bylaw
For my analysis of the current subdivision rules and regulations in East
Longmeadow, I used a combination of two different model bylaws. The two Model
Bylaws are:
1. Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT). Model Low Impact
Development Stormwater Management Bylaw. 2008. <www.vlct.org>
2. Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). Smart Growth/Smart Energy
Toolkit Bylaw.
<http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/>
When looking through the model bylaws I focused on the main themes
instead of the specific listings. For each main theme you can find additional
information and specific criteria if you visit the bylaw. The Bylaw from EEA focused
more on the performance standards for LID, whereas the VLCT bylaw focused more
on pre-construction and post-construction standards for LID. The comparison chart
that I have made will show you all of the main themes, and tell you if East
Longmeadow has already implemented the standard.

Comparison of Performance Standards

The performance standard is a specific section of the subdivision rules and
regulations where LID would most likely be found. In many other municipalitys
subdivision rules and regulations there is a section for performance standards, very
similar to East Longmeadows, where LID is found if they have implemented it.
When, and if, East Longmeadow implements LID, this is the section of the
subdivision rules and regulations where you will find it. Out of the nineteen listed
standards in the chart above, East Longmeadow has only implemented six of these
standards.

P a g e | 29

Table-6 Comparison of
Performance Standards For East
Longmeadow

It may be interesting to know how many of these standards are listed in the
subdivision rules and regulations of a town that has already implemented LID. The
town that I have decided to look at is Longmeadow, MA. Longmeadow is similar in
many ways; one of the more obvious ways is because Longmeadow is the
neighboring town to East Longmeadow. Longmeadow is also similar to East
Longmeadow in size, and population. As of 2010, the population in Longmeadow
was 15,784. The population of East Longmeadow was 15,720 in 2010. Longmeadow
had only 64 more residents than East Longmeadow in 2010. Again I have looked at

P a g e | 30
performance standards that are found in the subdivision rules and regulations for
Longmeadow.

From East Longmeadow to Longmeadow, there are some noticeable

differences. Longmeadow, a town that has implemented LID, has ten of the
standards listed in their subdivision rules and regulations. This is not far off from
East Longmeadow, where six of the standards are listed in the subdivision rules and

Table-7 Comparison of
Performance standards For
Longmeadow.

P a g e | 31
regulations. To me, this shows that East Longmeadow is not far from a town that has
implemented LID.

Recommendations
Street Widths
I recommend to the East Longmeadow Planning Board to decrease the paved
road width of any new road in a subdivision. Through a decrease in road width, East
Longmeadow can achieve one of the goals of LID, which is to decrease the amount
of impervious surfaces. Furthermore, the decrease in road width will dramatically
decrease the amount of stormwater runoff.
Decreased road width will not only decrease impervious surfaces and
stormwater runoff, but will create many more opportunities in East Longmeadow.
For example; regarding the construction of sidewalks in new subdivisions, a
decreased road width will allow for a wider grass buffer between the sidewalk and
the road, increasing the safety of pedestrians. Another example; regarding the
aesthetics of the neighborhood, a decreased road with will positively affect the
aesthetics of the neighborhood because of an increase in green spaces.
After the interview with the Chief of Fire, I do not believe the town will run
into any major issues concerning a decrease in road with. I predict that residents
will be pleased with a decreased road width because the residents of that
neighborhood will have gained extra space to their front yard. Few residents will be
unhappy with a decreased road width due to either; the road is too narrow, or
possibly due to parking concerns.
I recommend the following changes be made to the section of Street Widths
found in the East Longmeadow Subdivision Rules and Regulations:
1. For minor Streets, cul-de-sacs, and dead ends; I propose that the paved
width be changed from 30 feet to 24 feet.
2. For Secondary (Collector) Streets, I propose a decrease from 40 feet to 35
feet wide.
3. For Major (Arterial) Streets, I propose a decrease from 44 feet or two 30
foot wide lanes. I propose a decrease from 44 feet to 35 or 40 feet, and
from 30 foot wide lanes, to 25 foot wide lanes.

If these changes were to take effect, the table found in the subdivision rules
and regulations should match Table-8.

P a g e | 32

Table-8: Street
Widths.

Recommended Performance Standards

I recommend to the East Longmeadow Planning Board to implement performance
standards that meet the goals of LID. In Table-6 there was a comparison between
the East Longmeadow subdivision rules and regulations, and two LID Model Bylaws.
From the table it was quite obvious that there were many themes of LID missing
from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The list below contains my
recommendations for implementing LID standards into the subdivision rules and
regulations. Under most of the categories you will find an example of the standard
that can be used in the subdivision rules and regulations. The recommended
standards are:
1. No Untreated Discharges: If stormwater is to be discharged into
waterways from stormwater conveyance systems, the water should first be
treated. Untreated stormwater can carry NPS pollutants into our waterways.
a. Performance Standard Example: All stormwater runoff generated from
land development and land use conversion activities shall not
discharge untreated stormwater runoff directly to a wetland, local
water body, municipal drainage system, or abutting property, without
adequate treatment. (EEA)
2. Overbank Flooding Protection: Downstream overbank flood and property
protection shall be provided by [attenuating the post-development peak
discharge rate to the pre-development rate for the 10-year, 24-hour return
frequency storm event as required by the MA DEP LID Management Policy].
(EEA)
3. Groundwater Recharge: Recharge the groundwater through infiltration.
a. Performance Standard Example: Loss of annual recharge to
groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration
measures to the maximum extent practicable. The annual recharge
from the post development site should approximate the annual
recharge from the pre-development or existing site conditions, based
on soil types. (Longmeadow Subdivision Rules and Regulations)
4. Sensitive Areas: critical areas with sensitive resources (i.e., shellfish beds,
swimming beaches, aquifer recharge areas, water supply reservoirs)

P a g e | 33
a. Performance Standard Example: Stormwater discharges to critical
areas must use certain stormwater management BMPs approved for
critical areas. Critical areas are Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs),
shellfish beds, swimming beaches, cold water fisheries, and recharge
areas for public water supplies (Longmeadow Subdivision Rules and
Regulations)
5. Hotspots: land uses or activities with higher potential pollutant loadings
a. Performance Standard Example: Stormwater discharges from areas
with higher potential pollutant loads require the use of specific
stormwater management BMPs. The use of infiltration practices
without pretreatment is prohibited. (Longmeadow Subdivision Rules
and Regulations)
6. Manage Water, Prevent Erosion and Control Sediment During
Construction: Erosion and sediment controls implemented during
construction.
7. Reduce Impervious Surfaces: Surfaces where water cannot infiltrate.
a. Performance Standard Example: Stormwater shall be managed through
land development strategies that emphasize the reduction of
impervious surface areas such as streets, sidewalks, driveway and
parking areas and roofs. (VLCT)
Encouraging these standards will make East Longmeadow a more sustainable
community. Low Impact Development seeks to implement natural storm water
management, and that is just what these standards will allow for. Although the
subdivision rules and regulations may not specifically mention Low Impact
Development, aspects of LID will still be found.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

As mentioned in chapter 1 of this paper there are five main stormwater BMPs;
bioretention/rain garden, grass swales, permeable pavements, capture and re-use,
and vegetated rooftops. Capture and re-use, and vegetated rooftops should be
promoted, but is only really used in private settings. Grass swales, rain gardens, and
permeable pavements can be used in a municipal setting.
I recommend to the East Longmeadow Planning Board that they should
encourage the use of rain gardens and grass swales. I do not recommend to the
East Longmeadow Planning Board that they should encourage Permeable
Pavements. Capture and re-use, and vegetated gardens may be encouraged, but
are less likely to be used because it is mainly used in private settings.
Rain gardens and grass swales are an effective stormwater BMP, and promote
infiltration and evapotranspiration. I believe that the East Longmeadow Planning

P a g e | 34
Board should specifically mention and encourage the use of rain gardens and grass
swales in the subdivision rules and regulations.
Permeable pavements are not an effective stormwater BMP only in the New
England States because of the complications that come along with permeable
pavements during the winter months.

Maintenance Plan
I recommend to the East Longmeadow Planning Board to require a
maintenance plan from applicants. Developers who apply to create a new
subdivision should be required to provide a plan for the maintenance of stormwater
BMPs such as rain gardens and grass swales. The developer should be expected to
follow the maintenance plan accordingly.
I have made this recommendation because of the concern of maintenance
from Public Works. If a garden or swale is not maintained, it becomes less effective,
less attractive, and less wanted by residents. This is why each developer should
formulate, and commit to a maintenance plan for rain gardens and grass swales.
The maintenance plan may include:
1. Frequency of maintenance
a. how many times per week/biweekly/monthly
2. What is to be maintained, such as:
a. Weed control
b. Trimming
c. Mulching
d. Lawn Mowing
3. Who will be maintaining, such as:
a. Developer
b. Outside company
c. Residents
4. Required resources for maintenance, such as:
a. Power tools
b. Electricity
c. Fertilizers
I envision that with a maintenance plan in place, the concern of maintenance should
decrease. Rain gardens and grass swales can add beauty to a neighborhood, as well
as treat storm water.

Conclusions
Low Impact Development in East Longmeadow would further move the town
towards more sustainable practices. I believe that LID can be very effective in East

P a g e | 35
Longmeadow considering its small size, but yet rapidly growing community. I hope
that my research will have a positive impact on planning in East Longmeadow, and I
hope to begin seeing rain gardens and grass swales appear throughout East
Longmeadow as time goes on. A Special Thank you to the East Longmeadow
Planning Board for helping me succeed in my research for this project.

P a g e | 36

Chapter 2 References
Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit Bylaw.
<http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/>
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Costs of Low Impact Development: LID
Saves Money and Protects Your Communitys Resources. 2012.
<http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/factsheet.cfm#cost>
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). Massachusetts Low Impact
Development ToolkitFact Sheet #6 Permeable Paving.
<http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/LID_Fact_Sheet_-_Permeable_Paving.pdf>
Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT). Model Low Impact Development
Stormwater Management Bylaw. 2008. <www.vlct.org>