FRANKLIN COUNTY LID FIELD TRIP JWO Transit Center, - - PDF document

Workshop#2: FranklinCountyLIDFieldTrip& LIDTechnologiesandBestManagementPractices

September18,2015 September18,2015

1

Fundedthrough: EPA'sSection319NonpointSource PollutionGrantProgram AdministeredbyMassDEP

MillersRiver

WatershedCouncil

FRANKLINCOUNTYLIDFIELDTRIP

2

• JWOTransitCenter,Greenfield
• OliveSt.SidewalkIslandGarden,Greenfield
• HighSchoolRainGardens,Greenfield
• Davis&ChapmanSt.ParkingLot,Greenfield
• DeerfieldAcademyGreenRoof,Deerfield
• UnityPark,Montague
• RiverfrontPark,Orange

WORKSHOP#2AGENDA

4:00pm:Welcome,Introductions&Recapof

Workshop1—PatSmith,FRCOG

4:20pm:LIDTechnologiesandBestManagement

Practices—AndrewBohneRLA,LEEDAP,New EnglandEnvironmental

5:05pm Break 5:15pm:LIDCost/BenefitAnalysis—IvanUssach,

MRWC

5:30pm:OverviewofWorkshop3 5:45pm:Questions&Answers

3

PRESENTER: PatriciaA.Smith SeniorLandUsePlanner FranklinRegionalCouncil

• fGovernments

4

PROJECTBACKGROUND

FollowontoEasternMillersRiverWatershedLIDproject

conductedbyMontachusett RegionalPlanningCommission (MRPC)andMillersRiverWatershedCouncil(MRWC)in 20112013

Purpose:ToprovideLIDeducationandtechnicalassistance

todevelopLIDbylaws/ordinancesinOrange,Montague, Northfield,Warwick,Erving,Wendell,andNewSalem

Goal:Tomitigatetheimpactsofstormwaterrunoffinurban

areaslikeMontagueandOrangeandencouragedevelopment thatincorporatesLIDtoprotectthesensitiveareasinthe moreruralareasofthewatershed

FundingprovidedthroughEPA'sSection319Nonpoint

SourcePollutionGrantProgram,administeredbyMassDEP

5

WESTERNMILLERSLIDPROJECTTASKS

UpdatingLocalBylawswithLID

• Seriesofthree(3)ormoreworkshopsfortownofficials,DPW

staff,PlanningBoards,ConservationCommissions,building inspectors,developersandlocalresidents: (1) IntroductiontoStormwaterManagementintheMillersRiver Watershed (2) LIDTechnologiesandBMPs (3) LIDBylawDevelopment

FieldtriptoviewlocalLIDinstallations(MRWC) DevelopmentofwhitepapersonLIDforgeneraldistributionand

postingonwebsites

6

PROJECTTIMELINE

Timeline:24monthproject LocalPlanningBoardcontactsbeganinSpringof

2014

TechnicalassistanceonLIDordinance/bylaw

developmenttoTownPlanningBoardstobe providedthroughoutthetermoftheproject

RegionalWorkshopstobeheldinSummer/Fallof

2015

7

Low Impact Development (LID) and Best Management Practices

USING LID DESIGN FEATURES TO HELP REDUCE A PROJECTS STORMWATER IMPACTS USING LID DESIGN FEATURES TO HELP REDUCE A PROJECTS STORMWATER IMPACTS

Andrew Bohne, RLA abohne@neeinc.com Andrew Bohne, RLA abohne@neeinc.com

What is Low Impact Development?

EPA Definition LID is an approach to land development (or re-development) that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing effective imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage that treat stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product. There are many practices that have been used to adhere to these principles such as bio-retention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. By implementing LID principles and practices, water can be managed in a way that reduces the impact of built areas and promotes the natural movement of water within an ecosystem or

• watershed. Applied on a broad scale, LID can maintain or restore a watershed's

hydrologic and ecological functions. LID has been characterized as a sustainable stormwater practice by the Water Environment Research Foundation and others.

Land Use Changes – Where does the water go?

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects

Large Scale Urban Commercial

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Medium Scale Industrial Park Building

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Institutional LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Medium Scale Office Park Building

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Green Roof on Large Flat Roof Buildings LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Urban Settings

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Urban Settings LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Urban Settings

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Urban Settings LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Neighborhood Settings

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects Neighborhood Settings LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects

Single Family Rural Home

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects

Single Family Suburban Home

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects

Single Family Suburban Home

LID Works For Different Size, Context, and Shape Projects

Single Family Suburban Home

Traditional Vs. LID

Cul-De-Sacs

Traditional Vs. LID

Residential Streets

Traditional Vs. LID

Paving

Traditional Vs. LID

Swales

Rain Gardens and Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Overall Site Plan-Large Scale Commercial with LID Elements

In-Line Rain Gardens Bio-Filter Wetland Basin

Rain Gardens Typical Enlargement Planting Plan Rain Gardens Typical Cross Section

Rain Gardens Curb Cut Inlets Rain Gardens Rain Garden Soil Placement 70% Sand-20 Top Soil-10% Organic

Rain Gardens Rain Garden Heavy Organic Mulch Placement Rain Gardens Planted with Native Plants

Rain Gardens 3” River Stone Used at Curb Cuts Rain Gardens The Finished Product at Work

Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Site Plan Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Planted With Native Wetland Plants

Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Planted Side Slopes and Wetland Basin Floor Bio-Filter Wetland Basin

Creating Micro-Topography and Incorporating Woody/Stone Debris for Habitat Value

Bio-Filter Wetland Basin Wetland Basins Add Habitat Natural Channel vs. Rip-Rap Channel Used in Urban and Rural Settings

Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools Channel Cross Sections for Large Scale Rural Camp Entry Road Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools Step Pool and Planting Plans

Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools Site Specific Layout Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools Step Pool and Channel Installation

Natural Channel Bio-Swale and Step Pools 6 Months after Installation Bio-Swale with Permanent Erosion Control Fabric Detail – Cross Section

Grading and Fabric Installation Bio-Swale with Permanent Erosion Control Fabric Finished Product in Urban and Rural Context Bio-Swale with Permanent Erosion Control Fabric

Medium Scale Industrial Park Porous Paving, Bio-Swale, and Rain Garden

Porous Paving Bio-Swale Rain Garden

Details, Erosion Control, and Plant Lists Porous Paving, Bio-Swale, and Rain Garden

Grass Pavers, Filled With Soil, Seeded, and Mulched Porous Paving – Grass Pavers Grass Is Established and Open for Parking Porous Paving – Grass Pavers

Removal of Existing Paved Swale Bio-Swale Installation of Permanent EC Fabric, Native Seeding Planting Bio-Swale

Working With Existing Conditions For Proper Form and Function Rain Garden Planted with Native Vegetation Rain Garden

www.neeinc.com

ECOLOGICAL DESIGN AND PLANNING

Sustainable Design (GI) – Amherst, MA

www.neeinc.com

ECOLOGICAL DESIGN AND PLANNING

Sustainable Design (GI) – Amherst, MA

www.neeinc.com

ECOLOGICAL DESIGN AND PLANNING

Sustainable Design (GI) – Amherst, MA Promote Infiltration Concrete and Asphalt Vs Porous Paving

Overflow Parking and Everyday Parking Concrete and Asphalt Vs Porous Paving Porous Concrete Travel Lane and Concrete Paver Parking Spaces Concrete and Asphalt Vs Porous Paving

UNH Stormwater Center It works in New England! Concrete and Asphalt Vs Porous Paving Rain Gardens and Bio-Swales Overall Site Plan-Single Family Rural Home with LID Elements

Single Family Home – LID Elements Rain Gardens and Bio-Swales Used to Collect Roof Runoff and Overland Sheet Flow Single Family Home – LID Elements Rain Gardens and Bio-Swales Used to Collect Roof Runoff and Overland Sheet Flow

Single Family Home – LID Elements Rain Gardens and Bio-Swales Used to Collect Roof Runoff and Overland Sheet Flow

Hurricane Sandy, Irene and Tropical Storm Lee – A Case Study of Flood Resiliency Planning - Southern Tier, NY

Sidney GreenPlain and Riverlea Farm Flood-safe Neighborhood

RiverleaFarmConceptualDesign Sidney’sSolution:RiverleaFarm

RiverleaFarmConceptualDesign

Sing le F a mily Cotta g e

RiverleaFarmConceptualDesign

Ne ig hborhood Comme rc ia l

GreenPlainConceptualDesign

Storagevolume=aswimmingpool thesizeofafootballfield thatis20storiesdeep.

SidneyGreenPlain GreenPlainConceptualDesign

Community E duc a tion, Arts, Historic & Pe rforming Arts Ce nte r

GreenPlainConceptualDesign GreenPlainConceptualDesign

Mitig a tion, E duc a tion & Re c re a tion

GreenPlainConceptualDesign

Ha bita t, Biodive rsity & E c o- T

• urism

GreenPlainConceptualDesign

Initia l Pla nting

GreenPlainConceptualDesign

5- ye a r Me a dow

Takeitbackanduseitalltoslow thewaterdownandletitsoakin!

Takeitbackanduseitalltoslow thewaterdownandletitsoakin!

Thanks you all for your time! Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Andrew Bohne, RLA New England Environmental, Inc Amherst, MA – Concord, NH www.neeinc.com 413.256.0202 abohne@neeinc.com We all have the responsibility to make every project we work on as sustainable as possible.

SECTION 319 STORMWATER WORKSHOP for the W. MILLERS RIVER WATERSHED Financial Benefits of Using LID for Stormwater Management

Ivan Ussach, Watershed Coordinator Millers River Watershed Council

• Sept. 18, 2015

Greenfield, MA Healthy Rivers for Healthy Communities

“In the vast majority of cases, the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that implementing well-chosen LID practices saves money for developers, property owners, and communities while also protecting and restoring water quality.”

Source: USEPA (2007): Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices * LID Can Cost Less than Grey Infrastructure Alone * LID Approaches Result in Multiple Benefits * LID Approaches Can Be Successfully Integrated into Capital Improvement Programs * Economic Analyses can be used to Address Public Concerns and Gain Stakeholder Support

Key Findings from the USEPA 2013 Case Study Economic Analyses:

Source: USEPA, 2013: Case Studies Analyzing the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Programs

This paper summarizes the findings of some recent studies of the economic benefits of LID. Such studies are relatively rare, especially those comparing LID and conventional development practices. The studies are divided into three sections:

1) New England case studies 2) nationwide case studies 3) additional studies

• I. NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES

Project: Boulder Hills – Pelham, NH

• Description: 24 unit condominium built on 14 acres of

previously undeveloped land.

• LID Features: Roadway, all driveways and sidewalks

built of porous asphalt.

• Additional benefits: Improved water quality and runoff

volume reduction; less overall site disturbance (1.3 acres less); avoidance of wetland and flood-zone areas; reported cost savings for salt for winter ice management.

NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Boulder Hills – Pelham, NH

Stormwater management costs:

Item Conventional LID Difference Site prep $23,200 $18,000

• $5,200

Erosion Control $75,800 $54,400

• $21,400

Drainage $92,400 $20,100

• $72,300

Roadway $82,000 $128,000 +$46,000 Driveways $19,700 $30,100 +$10,400 Curbing $6,500

• $6,500

Additional $489,000 $489,000 Total SW Mgmt: $789,500 $740,300

• $49,128 (6%)

Source: UNH Stormwater Center et al, 2011

NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Greenland Meadows – Greenland, NH

• Description: 56 acre Retail shopping center site built

in 2008 (25.6 acres impervious), with largest porous asphalt installation in northeast.

• LID Features: SW management system includes two

porous asphalt installations covering 4.5 acres along with catch basins, sub-surface crushed stone reservoir, sand filter, and underground piping and catch basins.

• Additional: Site adjacent to EPA-listed impaired

waterway; clay soils with very low permeability;

NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Greenland Meadows – Greenland, NH

Project costs:

Item Conventional LID Difference Earthwork $2,174,500 $2,103,500

• $71,000

Paving $1,843,500 $2,727,500 +$$884,000 SW mgmt. $2,751,800$1,008,800 -$1,743,000 (Other project costs – same)

Total:

$6,769,800 $5,839,800

• $930,000 (26%)

Overall SW mgmt. costs lower by $930,000 (26 percent); main savings was $1,356,800 for large diameter piping. Source: UNH Stormwater Center et al, 2011

NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Comparison of Maintenance Costs for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management

BACKGROUND: Researchers from the Stormwater Center at UNH and colleagues at “examined seven different types of stormwater control measures for the first 2–4 years of operations and studied maintenance demands in the context of personnel hours, costs, and system pollutant removal. “The systems were located at a field facility designed to distribute stormwater in parallel in order to normalize watershed characteristics including pollutant loading, sizing, and rainfall. System maintenance demand was tracked for each system and included materials, labor, activities, maintenance type, and complexity.”

NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Comparison of Maintenance Costs for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management

RESULTS (from Abstract of published paper):

• Annualized maintenance costs ranged from $2,280=ha=year for a

vegetated swale to $7,830=ha=year for a wet pond.

• In terms of mass pollutant load reductions, marginal maintenance

costs ranged from $4–$8 per kg per year TSS removed for porous asphalt, a vegetated swale, bioretention, and a subsurface gravel wetland, to $11–$21/kg/year TSS removed for a wet pond, a dry pond, and a sand filter system. Source: J. Houle, R. Roseen et. al., 2013

NEW ENGLAND CASE STUDIES Project: Comparison of Maintenance Costs for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management

RESULTS (continued – from Abstract): “The results of this study indicate that generally, LID systems, compared to conventional pond systems, do not have greater annual maintenance costs and, in most cases, have lower marginal maintenance burdens (as measured by cost and personnel hours) and higher water quality treatment capabilities as a function of pollutant removal performance. “When nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus were considered, maintenance costs per kg per year removed ranged from reasonable to cost-prohibitive.”

• II. NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES

This section draws on two EPA studies from 2007 and 2013. The 2007 EPA report summarized 17 case studies of developments–mostly residential subdivisions--that include LID

• practices. These examples were selected on the basis of “the

quantity and quality of economic data, quantifiable impacts, and types of LID practices used.” Of those 17 studies, 12 studies had sufficient economic data to allow for comparison of conventional SW Mgmt. v. LID. Savings ranged from 15 - 80%, and $3,400 - $785,000, and

• ne project had higher costs of $737,200 (96%).

Several of these studies, providing a range in geography and project type, are described below.

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: 2nd Avenue SEA Street – Seattle, WA

• Description: LID Redesign of entire 660 foot

residential block

• LID Features: Bioretention, Reduced Impervious Area,

Swales

• LID cost: $651,548 - $ savings of $217, 255 (25%)

(Narrower street width and fewer sidewalks reduced paving costs by 49%.)

• Additional benefits: Monitoring showed 99%

reduction in surface runoff

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Gap Creek – Sherwood, Ark.

• Description: LID Residential subdivision (clustered)
• LID Features: Reduced impervious area, Vegetated

landscaping

• LID cost: $3,942,100 - $ savings of $678,500 (15%)

(Developers added 17 more lots; lots sold for $3,000 more and cost $4,800 less to develop than comparable conventional lots; developer’s additional profit – 2.2$M)

• Additional benefits: open space increased from 1.5 to 23.5

acres.

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Tellabs Corp. Campus – Naperville, Ill.

Description: 55-acre site with more than 330,000 square feet of office space, conservation design

• LID Features: Bioretention, Swales
• LID cost: $2,700,650 - $ savings of $461,510 (15%)
• Additional benefits: 6 fewer acres were disturbed

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES Project: Somerset – Prince Georges County, MD.

• Description: 80-acre subdivision with nearly 200

house lots--approx. half built with LID, half conventional

• LID Features: Bioretention, Swales
• LID cost: $1,671,461 - $ savings of $785,382 (32%)
• Additional benefits: Eliminating need for stormwater

retention pond created space for six additional lots; LID area had less runoff and lower concentrations of metals in runoff.

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES

The 2013 EPA Report includes 13 detailed case studies based on one or more of various economic analyses. The 13 case studies were selected from the 45 community LID projects that EPA evaluated, and “were selected to represent various types of economic analyses and LID programs, as well as a broad geographic and demographic range.” Of the 13 published in the report, several are selected here to indicate the variety of projects and economic analyses undertaken.

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES

Project: Green Streets Pilot – City of West Union, Iowa

Description: Includes the renovation of six downtown blocks. The life-cycle costs (the total capital and O&M costs for the project) of a permeable paver system in the downtown area were compared with those of traditional bituminous or Portland cement concrete pavement. $ Results: While permeable pavement is initially more expensive, lower maintenance and repair costs will result in cost savings in the long run. The city would begin to realize these cost savings by year 15 of the

• project. Estimated cumulative savings over a 57-year period were

calculated to amount to about $2.5 million. Other benefits: reduced flooding and water quality improvement from permeable pavements, biofiltration, and rain gardens.

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES

Project: Capitol Region Watershed District - Minnesota

Description: The CRWD is almost completely developed—42% covered by impervious surfaces. Water quality is impaired and there is localized

• flooding. In addition, aging sewer infrastructure has caused drainage

problems and sewer overflows to Lake Como. $ Results: A new storm sewer for conveying untreated, frequent floodwaters to Lake Como was estimated to cost $2.5 million compared to $2.0 million to implement LID infiltration practices. Other benefits: The 18 SW BMPs provide high SW volume-reduction and pollutant-removal efficiencies; improved the quality of an economically important, nutrient-impaired recreational lake; the City of St. Paul now uses a similar design for under-the-street infiltration trenches for street reconstruction projects.

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES

Project: Ecoroof Program – City of Portland, OR

Description: The Ecoroof program is one of several sustainable SW

• mgmt. systems used to treat 10 billion gal. of annual SW runoff.

$ Results: For the public, ecoroof construction provides both an immediate and a long-term benefit; the net present benefit is $101,660 at year 5 and $191,421 at year 40. For building owners, benefits do not exceed costs until year 20--when conventional roofs need replacement. Over the 40-year life of an ecoroof, the net present benefit to private stakeholders is more than $400,000. Other benefits: Numerous benefits were identified (incl. reduced O & M costs, carbon reduction, improved air quality). Some were quantified and/or monetized as part of a full benefit-cost analysis that showed a public economic benefit.

NATIONWIDE CASE STUDIES

Project: Rain to Recreation Program - City of Lenexa, KS

Description: Much of the city’s 34-square-mile area is experiencing development pressure. The city’s Rain to Recreation program includes regulatory and non-regulatory components. $ Results: Substantial cost savings associated with implementing LID/GI-oriented BMPs for multi-family, commercial, and warehouse developments in contrast to traditional stormwater management approaches using grey infrastructure. Other benefits: Reduced flooding, improved water quality and habitat, additional recreational opportunities.

• III. ADDITIONAL STUDIES

Several other studies from the literature documenting various kinds of economic benefits from LID projects are briefly summarized below.

* In Frederick County, Maryland, several cost-saving benefits were realized by redesigning a conventional subdivision with LID

• designs. These included eliminating two stormwater ponds,

which reduced infrastructure cost by roughly $200,000; increasing the number of buildable lots from 68 to 70, which added roughly $90,000 in value; and allowing the site design to preserve around 50 percent of the site in undisturbed wooded condition, which reduced clearing and grubbing costs by $160,000 (Clar, 2003).

ADDITIONAL STUDIES

• An infill site in northern Virginia saved over 50 percent in

infrastructure cost by minimizing impervious surfaces, protecting sensitive areas, treating stormwater at the source, and reducing setback requirements. (CWP et al, 2001).

• In the Village Homes LID development in Davis, CA, natural

vegetation and reduced pavement area helped lower home cooling expenses and energy bills by 33-50 percent as compared to surrounding neighborhoods (MacMullan, 2007).

• In Dane County, WI, permit fees for development are

calculated according to the amount of impervious area in a site, providing developers with an incentive to use LID to reduce permitting fees. (UNH Stormwater Center, 2011)

ADDITIONAL STUDIES

• An analysis of 184 lots in South Kingstown, Rhode Island

found that conservation subdivisions were more profitable than conventional subdivisions. Lots in the conservation subdivisions cost an average of $7,000 less to produce. Those lots had a 50 percent decrease in selling time, and were valued at from 12 to 16 percent higher than lots in conventional subdivisions (Mohamed, 2006).

• A retrofit at a UNH - Durham campus parking involved

installation of a bioretention system within the vegetated median and subsequently connecting the system directly to an adjacent train of LID drainage infrastructure. Total project cost per acre of impervious cover was $14,000. With labor and install provided by UNH staff, costs were limited to materials and plantings at $5,500 per acre of impervious cover.

References:

Clar, M. “Case Study: Pembrook Woods LID Development Residential Subdivision,” Ecosite, Inc., 2003 Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) and VA Department of Conservation, “The Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginia’s Streams, Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginia,” 2001 City of Portland, “Summary of Cost Benefit Evaluation of Ecoroofs Report,” November 2008 Houle, J. and Roseen, R. et al., Comparison of Maintenance Cost, Labor Demands, and System Performance for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management,” Journal of Environmental Engineering, July 2013

References:

MacMullan, E., “Using Incentives to Promote Green Infrastructure,” 2009 Stormwater Summit, Oregon ACWA MacMullan, E., “Economics of LID,” EcoNorthwest, Eugene, OR., 2007 Mohamed, R. , “Economics of Conservation Subdivisions,” Urban Affairs Review, 41 # 3, 2006 Roseen, R. and Janeski, T. et. al., “Economic and Adaptation Benefits of Low Impact Development,” Conference Proceedings, 2011 Low Impact Development Symposium, Philadelphia, PA

References:

UNH Stormwater Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Antioch University New England, “Forging the Links: Linking the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Community Decisions,” 2011 USEPA, “Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices,” 2007 USEPA, Case Studies Analyzing the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Programs, EPA 841-R-13-004, August 2013

Millers River Watershed Council

100 Main Street, Athol, MA 978-248-9491 council@millersriver.net millerswatershed.org Ivan Ussach, Watershed Coordinator ivan@millersriver.net

Workshop#3:

October29,2015 LIDBylawDevelopment

withDeborahShriver WaterResourcePlanning&ProtectionConsultant

SAVETHEDATE!

10

QUESTIONS?COMMENTS?

11

TheFranklinRegionalCouncilofGovernmentswouldliketothankthe Montachusett RegionalPlanningAgency(MRPC)foritsassistancein providingbackgroundmaterialsontheEasternMillersRiverWatershed LIDproject,whichhavebeenusedextensivelyinthedevelopmentof thispresentation.

CONTACTS

12

KimberlyNoakeMacPhee LandUse/NaturalResourcesProgramManager FranklinRegionalCouncilofGovernments 12OliveStreet,Suite2 Greenfield,MA01301 4137743167,ext.130 kmacphee@frcog.org PatriciaA.Smith SeniorLandUsePlanner FranklinRegionalCouncilofGovernments 12OliveStreet,Suite2 Greenfield,MA01301 4137743167,ext.134 psmith@frcog.org IvanUssach,MPH WatershedCoordinator MillersRiverWatershedCouncil MillersRiverEnvironmentalCenter 100MainSt.,Athol,MA01331 9782489491 ivan@millersriver.net