RT Review Logo

Homepage

E-edition: June 2008

Review > Contracting

RETROFITTING A RAIN GARDEN IN AN ARBORETUM HELPS CONTROL FLOODING IN LEXINGTON 

The West Glendover Stormwater Improvement Project in Lexington, KY, is an unusual project that resulted from extraordinary cooperation on the part of all parties involved. They managed not only to cooperate to create a functional and attractive stormwater management solution but also to resolve concerns that were sometimes diametrically opposed.

Locating the stormwater project in an arboretum stopped flooding to nearby homes, enhanced the arboretum's collection of plants, and allowed the public to see a large-scale rain garden. The project resulted from several years of complaints by residents of the Glendover Road area about flooding in their streets and basements. When Lisa and Todd Mudd came home one day only to find their children's toys floating in a foot of water in their basement, they added their complaints to those of their neighbors.

When the extent of flooding was understood, a project for the area was added to the city's list of stormwater projects that awaited funding. In 2000, the West Glendover Stormwater Improvement Project was added to the city's official list of stormwater projects. By policy, projects have to wait on the list for two years before being started. This time lapses anyway because of lack of funding, because there are usually about 100 projects on the list.

In early 2005, the West Glendover Stormwater Improvement Project was funded by the Lexington-Fayette Urban Council of Governments (LFUCG) Council. Gregory Lubeck, an LFUCG engineer since 2002, was assigned to manage the project. Among his first actions was to issue a Request for Qualifications for design work from private engineering firms.

After evaluating alternatives, Lubeck felt that the logical approach was also the most cost-effective: Slow the flow of water by taking advantage of the nearby arboretum's location and natural features. The arboretum is situated on land owned by the University of Kentucky (UK). The area was once the working farm for faculty and students in UK's College of Agriculture. Now it is the largest open space within the city limits and contains two watersheds. The arboretum, which occupies over 100 acres of the land, is funded jointly by UK and the LFUCG.

Stormwater naturally flows from northeast to southwest as it moves along the arboretum's rolling hills. Backyards of residents on Glendover Road end along the south to southwest border of the arboretum. Glendover Road slopes downhill, increasing stormwater flow for residents at the lower, western end of the street. But, while the solution seemed logical, the hardest part of the project "was getting everybody to agree that this was the solution, getting consensus," Lubeck says. The major reason for the project's success was establishing the comfort level with the arboretum folks that this would work in with their master plan, that it wasn't just a hole for water, that it would have an artistic look," he adds.

After a difficult construction period, the rain garden and wetlands are doing their job. Mr. James Lempke, the curator of native plants for the arboretum, made sure that construction was undertaken carefully. Now that the shrub layer and the tree layer are established, Lempke's goal is to have no erosion at the site. As sedges, rushes, and grasses begin to cover the bare patches of ground, their roots will stabilize the soil. Eventually they will from a dense ground cover, along with the wildflowers.

He looks forward to this summer (2008), when, with a full year of growth behind them, "Masses of wildflowers, [producing] a real 'wow' factor," should bloom throughout the Mississippi Embayment. Even in the first summer after completion of the project, Lempke has noticed that the swamp milkweed has drawn more butterflies, including swallowtails and skippers, to the area. "You can see and hear more bird life over here than anywhere else in the arboretum," he adds.

The idea that "wetlands are swamps, ugly mosquito-filled undesirable places, is a common misconception," Lempke says. He hopes that this part of the arboretum "will show that wetlands are essential to cities, farms, nature. They have the ability to provide diverse life forms." Bringing people into the environment and demonstrating that it is uniquely functional and beautiful, and that it’s cared for, was planned for as part of the design. A major component of that design is the 280-linear foot boardwalk, or footbridge, that replaced a section of the arboretum's regular asphalt path.

Lempke, who has more than enough to do at the arboretum, would probably never have wished to become involved with a stormwater project. However, he sees both the need for such a project and the diverse interests of the parties involved. "I don't know how we bring together the contractor and the biologist. No matter how good their intentions are, [there are conflicts]. Our technology only takes us so far, and there is much demand for speed and efficiency. But Mother Nature has other requirements. We have to find ways for new technology to manipulate the land but not destroy the ability of the land to respond and heal. Given half a chance, Mother Nature will heal.

The final concept includes plantings of native species, a boardwalk, and a series of three water-storage features that are intended to detain stormwater flows up to the 25-year, 24-hour event. (That measurement is approximately 2 acre-feet or 5.1 inches of rainfall within 24 hours.) Two berms with rock spillway outcroppings were created to slow stormwater and function as shallow detention basins. Water that continues to flow will reach the largest water-storage feature, a southwest side-the lowest point-of the area.

Areas of native plants upslope of the three basins intercept sheet runoff and increase infiltration and evapotranspiration rates by virtue of their deep root systems. They reduce the overall amount of runoff reaching the basins. The native plants chosen by Lempke for the project fit into the arboretum's master plan. As part of the contract, the city government paid for the purchase, planting, and care of the plants, which was all done under Lempke's supervision. While the city government has an urban forester, arborists, and landscape employees, everyone involved felt that Lempke was best suited for this responsibility. The cost was approximately $139,000.

Construction cost was approximately $470,000. This figure included payment for approximately 1,800 cubic yards of excavation, 280 linear feet of recycled plastic boardwalk, 1,500 linear feet of 2-inch waterline, and 88 tons of gray bluegrass region limestone bulk rock.

The West Glendover Stormwater Improvement Project meets the EPA's stormwater guidelines for public education. As school children, recreational and fitness walkers, and other people tour the area, they learn about the problem of stormwater and an effective and aesthetic way to manage it. In its cost range division, the project won a Best of the Year 2007 award from the Kentucky chapter of the American Public Works Association. (Margaret Buramen of Lexington, KY - Excerpted from Stormwater [3/4/08])  

Top

line

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR DISTURBANCE OF ONSITE CONTAMINANTS

A recent federal court decision from the Eastern District of California, United States v. Honeywell International, Inc., 2008 WL 508503, highlights the importance of conducting environmental due diligence prior to purchasing or developing real estate; and is a bitter reminder of the liability and damages to which a developer can be subject by failing to protect its interests by conducting that due diligence. In Honeywell, a developer was found liable for clean-up costs related to arsenic contamination in soils that were moved and dispersed during the course of developing streets and homes on the subject site, despite the face that the developer was unaware of that contamination at the time he purchased and developed the site.

Honeywell arose out of the United States' clean-up of arsenic above health-based standards at the Central Eureka Mine Superfund site ("the Site") in Amador County, California. Included as part of the Site was the subdivision of Vista Ray. Vista Ray was located adjacent to and north of a mound of mine tailings at Mesa de Oro. Those mine tailings were produced by the Central Eureka Mine and had tested positive for arsenic above health-based standards. According to unrefuted expert testimony in the case, from 1944 to 1989, erosion caused arsenic contamination to migrate from the Central Eureka Mine, through the Mesa de Oro mine tailings mound, and into the Vista Ray subdivision.

From 1978 to 1982, Vista Ray was owned by Charles Bruner ("Bruner"). During his ownership of Vista Ray, Bruner excavated and trenched the land for roads, underground utilities and finished lots. He also contracted with third-parties, including the City of Sutter Creek, for excavation in connection with the construction of streets, street lighting, sanitary sewers, water distribution pipes and the installation of other underground utilities. Ultimately, Bruner constructed 4 homes on 2 streets in the Vista Ray subdivision. In 1995, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") tested soils in Vista Ray and found arsenic above health-standards. EPA contracted with third parties to excavate, remove and replace the contaminated soil in Vista Ray.

Following the remedial activities, the United States brought an action against Honeywell and other defendants, seeking the costs EPA incurred in remediating the Central Eureka Mine Superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). The costs sought included the cost of removing and replacing the soil in Vista Ray, as well as costs for air quality monitoring and health assessments for persons living in Vista Ray. Honeywell and its co-defendants filed a third-party action for CERCLA contribution against 37 parties, including former Vista Ray owner/developer Bruner. After the Defendants/third-party plaintiffs, and 36 of the third-party defendants reached a settlement with the United States, the third-party plaintiffs sought summary judgment against Bruner, on the grounds that he was liable for contribution to the clean-up costs pursuant to CERCLA. Bruner asserted that he qualified as an "innocent landowner," which provided him a complete defense to CERCLA liability.

The trial court agreed with the third-party plaintiffs, and found Bruner liable for CERCLA contribution in relation to the EPA's clean-up costs at the Central Eureka Mine site. The trial court held that Bruner was liable under CERLCA to contribute to the reimbursement of EPA for clean-up costs it incurred in relation to Vista Ray. Bruner argued that he was an "innocent landowner" and therefore not subject to CERCLA liability for EPA's clean-up costs. There were two grounds for Bruner's asserted innocent landowner defense: 1) the release of hazardous substances and resulting damages were caused solely by the acts or omissions of a third party, i.e., the mining operations at Central Eureka; and 2) he had purchased the property after the mining operations placed contamination on the Vista Ray site; and he did not know, or had no reason to know, of the presence of that contamination. The trial court found that Bruner failed to qualify as an innocent landowner under CERCLA. First, it found that the mining operations were not the sole cause of the contamination at Vista Ray. But rather, by actively grading and excavating his property, Bruner "agitated and thereby released" the soil contaminants, contributing to the contamination at Vista Ray.

With respect to Bruner's claim that he did not know, or had no reason to know, of the contamination that migrated to Vista Ray prior to his ownership, the trial court found that even if that were true, Bruner could not satisfy the remaining element necessary to establish that defense. Specifically, to get a release from liability on those grounds, the landowner "must not have himself . . . contributed to the release of any substance. Again, the trial court had already determined that by excavating and grading soils at Vista Ray, Bruner had "released" hazardous substances at the site, thereby defeating this innocent landowner defense. In sum, the trial court granted summary judgment to the third-party plaintiffs, finding Bruner liable under CERCLA for EPA's clean up costs; but denied third-party plaintiff's request for a specific dollar allocation to Bruner on the grounds that it needed a more complete record to make that allocation.

(Thomas Burns-Saul Ewing 3/5/08)

Top

line