Ancillary effects and benefits of LID application

LID has numerous benefits and advantages and is a more environmentally sound technology. LID can enhance the local environment and protect public health, environmental assets and water quality; and builds community livability. Natural functions can be maintained with the use of LID practices, which include reduced impervious surfaces, functional grading, open channel sections, disconnection of hydrologic flow paths, and the use of bioretention/filtration landscape areas (Coffman, 2002; CSD, 2007). LID practices increase natural rainfall penetration and natural groundwater recharge, thus reducing potential impacts on biological habitat and reduced base flow into reservoirs from extended drought periods (CSD, 2007; Gilroy & McCuen, 2009). The natural processes employed by LID practices allow pollutants to be filtered or biologically or chemically degraded before stormwater reaches the water bodies (CSD, 2007).

Figure 10.9 shows the difference in surface temperature between an asphalt and permeable pavement. The use of permeable pavement contributed to a decrease in surface temperature in urban areas that could possibly lead to a partial reduction of the heat island effect. Retention and infiltration of urban water using LID facilities also produce a variety of effects such as reduction of pollutants, recovery of water circulation, provision of ecological habitats, prevention of urban disasters, and reduction of energy use.

Figure 10.9 Surface temperature reduction by permeable pavement.

The opportunities, effectiveness, and benefits for control of runoff through numerous small-scale multifunctional landscape features have not been fully explored. To apply LID in industrial sites is simply a matter of developing numerous ways to creatively prevent, retain, detain, use, and treat runoff within multifunctional landscape features unique to that site.

10.4 CONCLUSION

Toxic substances such as acids, alkalis, degradable organic residues, detergents, disinfectants, dyes, engine coolants, fertilizers, fuel, lubricants, metal solutions, pharmaceuticals, salts, poisons and solvents present in industrial sites could be transported by stormwater runoff and can cause a minor inconvenience to a major disaster bringing harm to people, property and/or ecosystems. In order to avoid flooding and contamination risks in industrial areas, LID practices are widely applied in developed countries to minimize the hydrological and environmental impacts of stormwater runoff. The basic LID strategy to manage stormwater is to reduce runoff volume and decentralizing flows, best accomplished by creating a series of smaller retention/detention areas that allow localized filtration instead of carrying runoff to a remote collection area to be treated. As nonpoint source pollution continues to be the focus of watershed management within municipalities, development and implementation of effective stormwater management practices has emerged as the key to controlling this inherently diffused and decentralized source. In particular, implementation of stormwater IMPs into LID in industrial areas undergoing development and redevelopment is recommended to focus on minimizing post-development peak discharge rates, volume of runoff and pollutant loads, to mimic pre-development values with the ultimate goal of protecting and/or improving the quality of receiving waters.

REFERENCES

Coffman L. S. (2002). Low Impact Development: Smart Technology for Clean Water Definitions, Issues, Roadblocks, and Next Steps. Urban Drainage 2002: 9th International Conference on Urban Drainage. Sept. 8–13, 2002. Portland, Oregon.

Low impact development features 151

County of San Diego (CSD) (2007). Low Impact Development Handbook – Stormwater Management Strategies. Department of Planning and Land Use, San Diego, California. December 2007.

Davis A. P. (2005). Green engineering principles promote low-impact development. Environmental Science & Technology, 39(16), 338–344.

Ferguson B. (2002). Stormwater management and stormwater restoration. In: Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design, R. L. France (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Washington DC.

Fletcher T. D., Shuster W., Hunt W. F., Ashley R., Butler D., Arthur S., Trowsdale S., Barraud S., Semadeni-Davies A., Bertrand-Krajewski J.-L., Mikkelsen P. S., Rivard G., Uhl M., Dagenais D. (2015). SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal, 12(7), 525–542.

Gilroy K. L. and McCuen R. H. (2009). Spatio-temporal effects of low impact development practices.

Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 367(3–4), 228–236.

Guillette A. (2007). Achieving sustainable site design through low impact development practices. In:

Whole Building Design Guide. National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC.

Kang J. H., Kayhanian M. and Stenstrom M. K. (2006). Implications of a kinematic wave model for first flush treatment design. Water Research, 40(20), 3820–3830.

Lee E. J., Maniquiz M. C., Gorme J. B. and Kim L. H. (2010). Determination of cost-effective first flush criteria for BMP sizing. Desalination and Water Treatment, 19, 157–163.

Lloyd S. D., Wong T. H. F. and Chesterfield C. (2002). Water Sensitive Urban Design: A Stormwater Management Perspective. CRC for Catchment Hydrology Industry Report 02/10.

Maniquiz M. C. (2012). Low Impact Development (LID) Technology for Urban Stormwater Runoff Treatment–Monitoring, Performance and Design. PhD thesis, Kongju National University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cheonan City, South Korea.

Maniquiz-Redillas M. C., Geronimo F. K. F. and Kim L. H. (2014). Investigation on the effectiveness of pretreatment in stormwater management technologies. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 26(9), 1824–1830.

Mull K. K. (2005). Selling low impact development: audiences, messages, and media. In: Fourth National Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Education Programs. Holiday Inn, Chicago, pp. 46–52.

National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER) (2012). The Technical Guideline of Water Pollutant Load Management. National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon South Korea [Korean Literature].

Prince George’s County (PGC) (1999). Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach. Prince George’s County, MD Department of Environmental Resources. June 1999.

Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) (2005). Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Publication No. PSAT 05–03. Washington State University Pierce County Extension, Olympia, WA.

Scholze R., Novotny V. and Schonter R. (1993). Efficiency of best management practices for controlling priority pollutants in runoff. Water Science and Technology, 28(3–5), 215–224.

Sharifi S., Massoudieh A. and Kayhanian M. (2011). A stochastic stormwater quality volume-sizing method with first flush emphasis. Water Environment Research, 83(11), 2025–2035.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (US EPA) (2005). National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas. EPA- 841-B-05–004. Office of Water, Washington DC.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2000). NPDES National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/

U.S. Department of Defense (US DoD) (2004). Unified Facilities Criteria – Design: Low Impact Development Manual, Unified Facilities Criteria No. 3–210–10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2002). Considerations in the design of treatment  best  management practices (BMPs) to improve water quality. USEPA report EPA/600/R-03/103.

University of Arkansas (UOA) (2010). Low Impact Development: A Design Manual for Urban Areas.

Fay Jones School of Architecture, University of Arkansas Press.

Wanielista M. P. and Yousef Y. A. (1993). Stormwater Management. J. Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 579.

© IWA Publishing 2017. Wealth Creation without Pollution: Designing for Industry, Ecobusiness Parks and Industrial Estates

Brian D’Arcy, Lee-Hyung Kim, Marla Maniquiz-Redillas doi: 10.2166/9781780408330_153

C. Pittner

*, N. S. Campbell

, H. Sommer

, H. Sieker

, B. J. D’Arcy

1WSP, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 7 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh

2C&D Associates, and independent consultant, www.enviroexperience.

co.uk, Edinburgh, UK

3Ingenieurgesellschaft, Hoppegarten, Near Berlin

*Corresponding author: chris.pittnerspgroup.com

11.1 INTRODUCTION

Infrastructure requirements for pollution prevention and flood risk management have been set out in text books and guidance for many years, for example Horner et al. (1994), Urbonas and Stahre (1993), Schueler (1987), Schueler et al. (1992), CIRIA (2000, 2015). The techniques detailed are variously described in the literature and in policy guidance in each country as urban best management practices (BMPs), sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and elsewhere as Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. Such guidance however, is not enough on its own to deliver fit-for-purpose application of the technology. Case studies of successful application of the technical guidance are valuable, since different constraints can be described and how they were overcome demonstrates the ways in which guidance can be effectively translated into reality. In addition, although all three examples here are excellent, well respected demonstration developments,

Chapter 11

The application of sustainable