&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Proceedings of the Collaborative
Science and Technology Network
for Sustainability Workshop
NOVEMBER 8-9, 2007
FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON
120 IK STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Table of Contents
Harnessing the Hydrologic Disturbance Regime: Sustaining Multiple Benefits
in Large River Floodplains in the Pacific Northwest 1
Stanley Gregory, Dave Hulse, Roy Haggerty
Multi-Objective Decision Model for Urban Water Use: Planning for a Regional
Water Reuse Ordinance 3
Paul R. Anderson, Jesse Elam, George Vander Velde
Sustainable Sandhills: A Plan for Regional Sustainability 4
Jon Parsons, Jeff Brown, Pete Campbell, Richard Perritt, Susan Pulsipher
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico 5
Jose Rivera Santa, Carlos M. Padin-Biblioni, Maria Juncos-Gautier, Harrison Flores,
Antonio Gonzalez, Jorge Hernandez, Juan Lara
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network 6
Stuart Schwartz, Allen Bradley, Brian Mikelbank, Terry Schwarz
Framework for Sustainable Watershed Management 8
Pamela V'Combe
Moving Toward Sustainable Production 12
Terri Goldberg
Bringing Global Thinking to Local Sustainability Efforts: A Collaborative Project
for the Boston Metropolitan Region 13
Paul Raskin, James Goldstein, Sudhir Chella Raj an, Philip Vergragt
Using Market Forces To Implement Sustainable Stormwater Management 14
Dan Vizzini, Dave Kliewer, Gordon Feighner, Jim Middaugh, Craig Shinn, Mary Wahl
Ecological Sustainability in Rapidly Urbanizing Watersheds: Evaluating Strategies
Designed To Mitigate Impacts on Stream Ecosystems 15
Margaret A. Palmer, Meosotis Curtis, Keith VanNess, Amy Hennessey, Kevin Kelly
Integrating Water Supply Management and Ecological Flow Water Requirements 16
Mark P. Smith, Colin Apse, Brian Joyce, Yongxuan Gao, Richard Vogel,
Stacey Archfield, JackSieber
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research Hi
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Harnessing the Hydrologic Disturbance Regime: Sustaining Multiple Benefits
in Large River Floodplains in the Pacific Northwest
Stanley Gregory1, Dave Hulse2, and Roy Haggerty3
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR;
2Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR;
Department of Geoscience, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR;
Large river floodplains in the Pacific Northwest are the most ecologically and economically productive
lands in the region. This research project has integrated a study of thermal patterns in the Willamette River,
developed a model of hyporheic influence on water temperature, and created dynamic visualizations of
technical concepts and research results. This information and informatics tools have been used to work with
regional decision makers and state agencies to simultaneously derive water temperature reductions, terrestrial
and aquatic habitat enhancements, increased recreation, and improved nonstructural flood storage in large river
floodplains, while meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for
elevated temperature as a water quality limiting factor and federal Endangered Species Act concerns for
elevated stream temperature effects on listed salmonids and other native riverine species. We have worked
with municipalities, state and federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations to find solutions to
comply with regulations while maximizing and sustaining the benefits to their constituencies. We have
developed empirical water temperature data, models of hyporheic exchange, tools for geographic prioritization,
and interacted with citizens and agencies to find socially plausible solutions.
The spatial distribution of cold water habitats has been mapped in the upper Willamette River between
Albany and Eugene, Oregon. We used our maps of channel and floodplain complexity in the Willamette River
in 1850, 1895, 1932, and 1995 to develop a typology of thermal reach types based on associations of thermal
characteristics and channel morphology and floodplain vegetation. Based on these typologies, spatially explicit
representations of the likely thermal patterns of the Willamette River have been developed. These typologies
were used to project priorities for future floodplain restoration in response to land use changes, human
population increase, and regional climate change.
Two simulation models of thermal dynamics have been developed in surface and hyporheic flows of
floodplain rivers to predict thermal patterns that might result from alternative channel configurations, flow
patterns, and floodplain vegetation. The first model was developed for the Oregon Department of En-
vironmental Quality to explore floodplain application of wastewater. In summer 2006, we conducted field
studies of hyporheic properties of three study sites. A simulation model of hyporheic exchange was developed
for the three sites, and the relative contribution of the major determinants of water temperature was evaluated.
This model is being used to develop a thermal credit trading framework for the Willamette River and to design
restoration efforts in the Willamette River.
We used the field study results and preliminary modeling as a basis to discuss spatially explicit restoration
efforts with regional agencies and citizen groups. Four workshops were held in 2006-2007 with the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, citizen groups, and municipalities in the Willamette Valley. We
identified approaches for achieving and sustaining multiple benefits, including but not limited to thermal
modification, in prioritized locations. We also worked with the Willamette Partnership to develop market-
based approaches to accomplish these goals. The meetings facilitated discussions between the state and major
water users and have resulted in provisions with TMDL permits that encourage floodplain restoration. We are
working with the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Council to design floodplain restoration to meet their
TMDL wasteload allocations. These projects will form the initial demonstrations of the credit trading system,
WillamEx, which is being developed by the Willamette Partnership and U.S. EPA and will be implemented by
December 2008.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board has used this project and previous research supported by a
U.S. EPA STAR Grant and U.S. EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Western Ecology Division, in Corvallis, Oregon, to develop a Special Investments Program for restoring the
mainstem of the Willamette River. Oregon has dedicated $6 million in the next biennium for restoration and is
collaborating with partners to match the investment from non-state funds. A total of $24 to $50 million will be
committed to restoration of the mainstem of the Willamette River by 2014. Research on cold water refuges
from this project will provide a significant component of the technical foundation for this collaborative
program to restore and conserve multiple ecosystem services for a large, floodplain river.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Multi-Objective Decision Model for Urban Water Use:
Planning for a Regional Water Reuse Ordinance
Paul R. Anderson , Jesse Elam , and George Vander Velde
Armour College of Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL; Chicago Metropolitan
Agency for Planning, Chicago, IL; 3Illinois Waste Management and Research Center, Champaign, IL
Project Goal and Objectives: The overall goal of this research project is to promote reuse as part of
long-term sustainable water resources planning in northeast Illinois. Specific objectives of this project are to
evaluate potential future water shortages, assess barriers and incentives to treated wastewater reuse, and
develop and apply a multi-objective decision model for optimizing urban and suburban water use in northeast
Illinois.
Approaches: One of the first project tasks was to assess current and projected water supply and demand
in the Chicago metropolitan area to identify potential water supply shortages. We also estimated hydrologic
footprints for 50 large-volume water discharging industries to quantify the wide range of water use efficiencies
relative to economic output. Reuse of treated municipal wastewater effluent can help to address potential
future water shortages. To better understand that role, we examined the technological, economic, societal, and
environmental incentives and barriers to wastewater reuse. Because economics plays such a critical role, an
optimization model also was developed to minimize the costs of water use in this region. The model includes
costs for additional treatment, system maintenance, and especially the cost of installing new pipelines.
Significance of Findings: Water use in northeast Illinois has not been consistent with the concepts of
sustainable growth. For example, the Chicago diversion from Lake Michigan has exceeded the limit specified
by the U.S. Supreme Court decree of 1967, and most of the water is used in applications that do not demand
high-quality water. Furthermore, the water and wastewater treatment processes dissipate a substantial amount
of energy. Wastewater reuse in the Chicago metropolitan area could reduce the costs of municipal (drinking)
water treatment, reduce the costs of wastewater treatment, reduce the amount of water diverted from Lake
Michigan, and result in significant energy savings. We believe that a successful approach in northeast Illinois
could find applications throughout the Great Lakes region.
Future Prospects for the Work: The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is adapting
methodology developed in this study for water resources planning in the 11-county region that comprises
northeast Illinois. As part of their role as facilitator for the Regional Water Supply Planning Group, CMAP
plans to classify clusters of industry (existing as well as planned industrial parks) based on their proximity to
municipal wastewater treatment plants. With that information, they can compare supply costs for treated
wastewater effluent and for conventional municipal water. Results from their efforts will be included in the
Regional Water Supply Plan that CMAP develops. In addition, CMAP will work with its Business, Industry,
and Power and Wastewater/Non-Municipal Water Suppliers stakeholder groups to communicate the findings
and find implementation strategies for recommendations emerging from the study.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Sustainable Sandhills: A Plan for Regional Sustainability
Jon Parsons , Jeff Brown , Pete Campbell, Richard Perritt, and Susan Pulsipher
1 Sustainable Sandhills, Fayetteville, NC; 2North Carolina Center for Geographic Information & Analysis,
Raleigh, NC; 3V.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC;4Sandhills Area Land Trust,
Southern Pines, NC; 5North Carolina Department of Commerce, Fayetteville, NC
Project Goal and Objective: The goal of this research project is to integrate Sustainability planning into
the day-to-day operations of the governments and communities in the Sandhills. The Sandhills region is
defined as an eight-county area in southeast North Carolina. For this project, an additional three counties were
added so that the project footprint matched that of the Base Realignment and Closure Regional Task Force
initiative.
The objective of this project is to foster a coordinated approach to economic development, cultural and
natural resource preservation and enhancement so that the quality of life in the region is improved. Using these
suitability maps, decision-makers can identify, visualize, and assess relative values of land use to understand
and communicate opportunities and constraints.
Approaches: This project created six geographic information systems-based models of land suitability.
The results can be used singly or in a variety of combinations. The best available data across the region were
identified. Stakeholder meetings and focus groups provided input into the modeling process. Project leaders
used an iterative approach to find out what makes an area suitable for a particular land use activity. Rule-based
criteria were applied to factors identified as assets and constraints.
Significance of Findings: The release of results has just begun. A planner who assessed the relevance of
the results in her jurisdiction found the maps very relevant. The maps illustrated aspects of the landscape of
which she was unaware. This new perspective altered a proposed land use plan and provided additional
affirmation on zoning changes. She expects to use the combination maps as an educational and interpretative
tool at public hearings.
Some members of the development community who participated in developing the tools expect the maps
to assist in obtaining more coherent and consistent application of land use regulations and changes. The maps
will assist them in communicating with planners and vice versa, and will assist both parties in presentations to
local elected officials.
Future Prospects for the Work: The future for this project is assured through several agencies for
different reasons. The North Carolina Department of Commerce will periodically update the data, rerun the
models, and assist Sustainable Sandhills in redistributing the results. This will ensure that planners and other
users have access to current data.
A regional organization, the BRAC-RTF, is already using its own money to add a predictive feature on top
of the existing project models. In addition, the planner for the BRAC-RTF is charged with developing a
growth management plan for the 11-county region covered by these Sustainability maps. The maps are one of
the inputs in this analysis of data. Funding for refining the models themselves based on a year's usage may
become available through organizations that are using these models and data in their own projects.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Jose Rivera Santa, Carlos M. Padin-Biblioni, Maria Juncos-Gautier, Harrison Flares,
Antonio Gonzalez, Jorge Hernandez, and Juan Lara
School of Environmental Affairs, Center for Sustainable Development Studies,
Vniversidad Metropolitana, San Juan, PR
The primary goal of this research project is to develop a scientific model using geographic information
systems (GIS) with a land use Sustainability index to provide a scientifically reliable tool to measure and
monitor the impacts of the progression of the urban built environment on the quality and availability of land,
ecosystems, and water in Puerto Rico for long-term Sustainability. At present, Puerto Rico faces the challenge
of a small tropical island (surface area is 8,874 km2) with a high population density (429 inhabitants per square
kilometers) and no island-wide land use plan. In addition, the island is divided into 78 municipalities
(equivalent of townships in the United States), and each of these has the authority to prepare its own individual
land use plan. The model to be developed will produce a land use index from 23 selected indicators, which will
provide accessible and reliable information for key public and private stakeholders on the Sustainability of their
land use activities.
The initial process for the development of the model used four municipalities in Puerto Rico as case
studies by examining the following: (1) site characterization and assessment, and the construction of the
conceptual model; (2) collection and analysis of information and metadata for reliability, relevance, and
accessibility; (3) analysis of GIS maps, aerial photographs, and satellite data; (4) selection of possible
indicators based on the results of steps 2 and 3; (5) assignment of appropriate weight to each selected indicator,
dividing them into stressors or relievers; (6) selection and validation of benchmarks and/or planning objectives
for the indicator; (7) data integration for Sustainability index (composite index model); and (8) analysis,
reevaluation, and validation of outcomes.
The initial results revealed that all four municipalities scored quite low on Sustainability—a mirror of the
widespread unsustainable land use practices on the island. Now all benchmarks and planning objectives
initially selected will be double-checked and validated, taking into consideration the challenges faced in the
development that included: (1) the methodology and source of some data (metadata) were hard to verify
and/or not readily available at the agencies and municipalities; (2) there are no clear and agreed upon
benchmarks for many indicators (a scientifically proven threshold, a locally accepted public policy goal, or
internationally agreed upon goal); and (3) the municipalities, as territorial units, pose difficulties in data
collection and analysis when the scope and origin of the land use activity have a regional character. These
challenges will be addressed at this final stage of the project by the research team and the External Advisory
Committee to validate locally accepted land use planning goals.
Upon completion of this model, additional funding will be sought to fine tune some of the indicators and
expand some to a regional scale using watersheds and/or municipal regional economic initiatives as territorial
planning units. This research project is foreseen as spearheading the development of Puerto Rico's State of
Land Use for Sustainability Report and serving as a tool to rank the municipalities according to their land use
"eco-efficiency."
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Stuart Schwartz , Allen Bradley , Brian Mikelbank , and Terry Schwarz
1 Center for Urban Environmental Research and Education, University of Maryland Baltimore County,
Baltimore, MD; 2IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA;
3Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH; 4Cleveland Urban Design
Collaborative, Collegeof Architecture and Environmental Design, Kent State University, Cleveland, OH
In northeast Ohio, as in most of the nation, market-driven land development decisions, modulated by
hydrologic design for site development and stormwater management, shape the cumulative stressors that drive
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem responses. Yet the gaps between current decision making, and our emerging
understanding of land use-hydrologic-ecosystem interactions pose some of the greatest challenges to
sustainable development in the nation's urban-suburban metroplexes. These challenges also represent timely
opportunities to enrich and rationalize decision making by matching science and technology applications to
key information gaps that inform a systems approach to land transformation decisions. To address this timely
challenge, the Center for Urban Environmental Research and Education (CUERE) at the University of
Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) has undertaken the Cuyahoga Sustainability Network (CSN). CSN
cultivates a systems-oriented application of science and engineering to sustainable development, focusing on
land transformation decisions and an ecosystem that serves at the urban-suburban fringe.
The CSN integrates regional partnerships and interdisciplinary expertise spanning the environmental,
economic, and social dimensions of sustainable decision making, focused at the intersection of land
transformation decisions and their consequences for urban ecosystems. Collectively, the proposed program
elements address essential information needs coupling the multi-scale effects of land transformation decisions
with ecosystem responses in urbanized systems. With a regional focus on the Cuyahoga River Valley and its
built environments, the CSN cultivates a portfolio of collaborative science and technology applications to
support sustainable decision making at the intersection of natural systems, engineered systems, and human
social and institutional systems.
Significant Findings: Hedonic analysis of property sales shows no significant penalty in prices or
appreciation rates for properties developed with conservation design, or in municipalities with riparian setback
zoning.
*J* Pervious concrete demonstrations and workshops supporting technology transfer, education, and
outreach, continue to contribute to the information needs of research and practitioner communities in
northeast Ohio. New pervious concrete placements in the City of Seven Hills, Lakewood, University
Circle, and downtown Cleveland at Cleveland State University reflect the continued incremental
growth in understanding and acceptability of this technology in northeast Ohio.
*J* Preliminary analysis of urban infiltration data quantify limited infiltration on disturbed and compacted
pervious land uses, with significant implications for landscape-scale distributed infiltration.
*J* Initial estimates of Cleveland's urban forest services exceed $3 million in annual benefits from
improved air quality alone.
Future Prospects: Our partners are supporting a demonstration of low impact development (LID) on a
private site, incorporating pervious pavement, bioretention, bioswales, and long-term monitoring. Our pre-
development site assessment will provide baseline data to evaluate pre- and post-development site
performance.
*J* No-mow and low-mow lawn mixes are under evaluation with the Cleveland Botanical Gardens at
reclaimed properties in the City of Cleveland. Cleveland's urban greening creates parcel-scale urban
test plots to evaluate alternate lawn mixes as well as site preparation and treatments for compaction
effects and infiltration performance.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 6
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
*J* We anticipate developing urban forest service estimates for the Cuyahoga County Greenprint, the
Cleveland Metroparks, and Cleveland's street tree database, targeting a community-based volunteer
survey of the regions' urban forests.
*J* Our research-training-outreach model for pervious concrete technology transfer is being leveraged in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Framework for Sustainable Watershed Management
Pamela V'Combe
Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, NJ
Description: This research project takes place in the Pocono Mountains where the existing environmental
resources are the region's largest economic multiplier. The area also is experiencing the state's second highest
rate of population growth. Local concerns about sustaining water resources instigated an interdisciplinary
effort to design a sustainable framework based on sound science that protects stream/lows (baseflows) in high-
quality streams threatened by rapid development. By using wild trout (populations) as an indicator species to
gauge the effect of development on stream/lows (baseflows), strategies that protect the wild trout habitat will
help sustain the Creek's water resources. This effort integrates science, policy making, community outreach,
and public education through a unique iterative planning process.
Status: The technical stage is an assessment of the effects of groundwater withdrawals and land use
changes on brown trout, with brown trout being an indicator species for habitat, baseflows, and water quality.
This stage is near completion. Major components completed are:
Water monitoring
Development of a Groundwater Model (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS])
Development of a Watershed Hydrology Model (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Research and Development [EPA-ORD], Cincinnati, OH)
Population and land use projections (Monroe Comprehensive Planning Commission [MCPC])
Build-out scenarios (MCPC)
Water quality monitoring data collected and analyzed (EPA-ORD, Edison, NJ)
Current water use (Delaware River Basin Commission [DRBC])
Hydroecological Stream Classification (USGS, Fort Collins, CO).
Due to insufficiency of data, the original intent to use the groundwater and hydrology models for inputs
into the PA IMIF Model was not possible to complete. Instead, the DRBC contracted with the USGS Science
Center in Fort Collins, Colorado, to complete a hydrological classification of the Pocono Creek Watershed's
streams, develop flow standards and characterize hydrologic alteration—2000 baseline and 2020 "build out."
The stream classifications were completed in October 2007.
Objective: Building on the foundation of an earlier pilot study of Pocono Creek, the need to ensure long-
term sustainability of the creek's water resources became a primary concern. EPA responded by providing the
means to develop a framework that integrates a watershed planning process with scientific, policy, and
educational outreach products to implement strategies for sustainable watershed management.
This project is to be completed in three phases: (1) Technical; (2) Policy Development; and (3)
Community Watershed Event. The Technical Phase involves collecting data, and building a groundwater
model and a watershed hydrologic (hydraulics) model. These tools will be used to analyze projected land use
change scenarios, producing outputs (i.e., surface water/groundwater interface, streamflows, projected impact
of development on watershed hydrology [and land use scenarios]) that will be inputs to the third model that
will calculate the flow regime necessary to support the wild trout habitat. The Policy Development Phase will
use the technical information to devise strategies that will protect the conditions necessary to ensure that the
wild trout habitat will be sustained. The Community Watershed Event is the concluding event that will roll out
the strategies to key decision makers through a process that fosters collaboration and strategy implementation.
A. Project Organization: Organizational functions were assigned to an administrative Steering Com-
mittee and support "teams" for the technical, policy, and outreach phases of this project. This project's
reiterative nature calls for a flexible scope, which is assessed regularly to meet the needs of the changing local
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
conditions and changes in process and/or methodologies when necessary. The transition from the Technical
Phase into the Policy Development Phase has begun by identifying the skills needed to develop sustainable
strategies, those that have those skills, and their recruitment.
A "Memorandum of Understanding" has been sent to all partners, and a request for a "no-cost" extension
has been made to move the project deadline from September 30, 2006, to June 2007. Communications between
the Technical Team and Steering Committee and among the Technical Team members will continue to take
place on an as-needed basis.
Two grant(s) applications for the final implementation of watershed strategies were submitted to the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Growing Greener in March 2005 and EPA's Assess-
ment and Watershed Protection Program Grant in June 2005.
B. USGS Groundwater Flow Model: A calibrated three-dimensional Groundwater Flow Model capable
of simulating groundwater/surface-water interactions in the Pocono Creek Watershed was successfully
developed. The Groundwater Flow Model can evaluate the effect of groundwater withdrawals on stream
baseflow and the corresponding impact on stream habitat. Also, it can estimate the potential reduction in
stream baseflow caused by reduction in recharge from urbanization.
The model includes an upper layer representative of the unconsolidated surficial glacial deposits that are
directly connected to the stream system and a lower layer representing fractured bedrock. The surface-water
divide between the Pocono Creek Watershed and adjacent watersheds were considered to be a no-flow
boundary. The model used the USGS MODFLOW computer program (Harbaugh and McDonald, 1996) with
the Ground-Water Modeling System (GMS) as the interface (Environmental Modeling Systems, Inc., 2004).
Aquifer-stream interactions were simulated using the stream-aquifer package of Prudic (1989). The model is
capable of simulating groundwater discharge to Pocono Creek with various recharge and pumping rates.
Bedrock geology were imported into the model from the digitized (Geographical Information System
[GIS]) geologic map of Berg and others (1980). Thickness of the bedrock aquifer was determined by statistical
analysis of available depth of water-bearing zone data. Hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock aquifer was
estimated based on analysis of available aquifer-test and specific-capacity data.
Surficial glacial geology was imported into the model from the digitized (GIS) surficial geology maps of
Berg and others (1977), Bucek (1971), and Epstein (1969, 1973, and 1990) that were provided to the USGS by
EPA. The thickness of glacial deposits was estimated based on casing depths from the USGS Ground-Water
Site Inventory (GWSI) database and the Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey Pennsylvania Ground
Water System (PaGWIS). Hydraulic conductivity of the glacial deposits will be estimated from available data
and literature values.
A seepage study, consisting of stream baseflow discharge measurements made with current meters at
selected locations, was conducted in October 2005. Water levels in wells in the watershed were measured at
the same time as the seepage measurements were made.
Eight wells in the watershed were equipped with transducers and continuous measurement data loggers.
This will provide data on aquifer response to precipitation and seasonal and annual water-level fluctuations.
Water levels were measured from September 2004 to June 2006.
Model calibration was based on available hydraulic data and data from the aquifer test, the seepage
studies, groundwater-level monitoring data, the USGS Pocono Creek streamflow-measurement station
(01441495), and water budgets for the Pocono Creek Watershed (Sloto and Buxton, 2005).
The model is calibrated to hydrologic conditions at the time of the seepage study that corresponded closely
to long-term average conditions. Long-term average conditions were determined by correlating discharge at
the Pocono Creek streamflow measurement station with discharge at a long-term streamflow-measurement sta-
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 9
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
tion in an adjacent watershed underlain by the same geologic units. Model inputs were recharged; output from
the model is the groundwater discharge to the Pocono Creek. A steady-state simulation approximates long-
term average conditions in the Pocono Creek Watershed.
The effect of groundwater withdrawals on stream baseflow were simulated by using hypothetical pumping
wells in selected subbasins. This establishes the link between groundwater withdrawals and streamflow
depletion. The maximum reduction in stream baseflow was determined for each scenario by using steady-state
simulations. The reduction in streamflow that causes a 5 percent habitat loss will be provided by the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission using the Pennsylvania Instream Flow Model (Denslinger and others,
1998). This model will be used to determine the groundwater withdrawal rate that would cause a streamflow
loss corresponding to a 5 percent habitat loss.
The effect of reduction in recharge on stream baseflow caused by increased impervious area due to
urbanization also was simulated by using the reduction in recharge provided by EPA from the results of their
surface-water-model simulations. The same scenario was simulated, one with no reduction in recharge and one
with reduced recharge, and compared to estimate the effect on stream baseflow.
C. Data Collection: A monitoring program has been ongoing. EPA-ORD's Edison, New Jersey, office
supplied in-stream equipment and training to support the collection of flow information The program records
water temperature in Pocono Creek and several tributaries. Automated logging equipment (YSI 6600 sondes)
also records dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, water depth, and turbidity at three locations throughout the
basin. In two locations, installed flow meters (American Sigma 950) record the depth and flow velocity that is
used to estimate the flow rate in subwatersheds. Tipping bucket rain gauges are installed at two locations to
monitor and document the total rainfall and spatial heterogeneity.
D. The Distributed Hydrologic Model: A Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model was de-
veloped by EPA. Adapted to be used as a watershed hydrologic model, it is able to quantify the impact of land
use changes on peak runoff during storm events and low flows during baseflow periods. The goal is to identify
a relationship between land use changes (increased imperviousness) on the frequency of peak runoff and low
and high flows, and identify areas in the watershed that may contribute mostly to anticipated changes.
Run on a Graphical User Interface (GUI) within a GIS, the SWAT has a process-based runoff, channel,
and baseflow components; operates on a daily time step; and combines Digital Elevation Maps (DEMs), soil,
and land use maps, as well as channel characteristics with excess runoff and channel flow simulators.
The model was calibrated based on a database supplied by the DRBC. The data include DEM, land use
maps, GIS soil data, and streamflow measurements obtained from a USGS gauge station located upstream
from the mouth of the watershed. Climate data, including precipitation measurements, are obtained from the
nearest NOAA gage stations. Next Generation Radar Rainfall (NEXRAD) also is evaluated as an alternative
source for spatio-temporal precipitation.
The model is calibrated and verified, and its predictive uncertainty is quantified to examine forecast
capability through time-series analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. The model can simulate hypothetical
scenarios of land use changes (increased imperviousness) with stochastically generated rainfall events. The
model results will quantify potential impacts of land use changes on groundwater recharge, and frequencies of
low and high flows.
E. Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process (HIP): As part of the Technical Phase, the USGS
Fort Science Center and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission cooperatively conducted a study that
establishes environmental flow standards and a streamflow alteration assessment for seven sub basins in the
Pocono Creek watershed. The Hydrologic Model's (Mohamed Hantush—EPA-ORD) outputs (i.e., surface
water/groundwater interface, streamflows, projected flow alteration due to water and land use development on
watershed hydrology) were utilized to conduct the streamflow alteration assessment and to compare the
assessment to environmental flow standards. The HIP developed by the USGS was used to conduct a
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 10
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
hydrologic classification of the Pocono Watershed's streams, establish environmental flow standards, and
assess past and proposed hydrologic alterations on streamflow and other ecosystem components. Because HIP
has not been developed for Pennsylvania, no stream classification for the entire state is available. Therefore,
after rejecting use of the New Jersey Hydrologic Assessment Tool, USGS at Fort Collins opted to use the
National Hydrologic Assessment Tool (NATHAT) that uses a national classification of streams (six types).
The first run of HIP was completed in October 2007. All streams in the watershed were of the same class,
"Flashy/Runoff," as established by the NATHAT.
The next task began in November 2007, and will apply the generic approach presented in the article titled
"The Challenge of Providing Environmental Flow Rules To Sustain River Ecosystems" in the Journal of
Ecological Applications (Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Poff, N.L., Naiman, R.N. The Challenge of Providing
Environmental Flow Rules To Sustain River Ecosystems. 2006;16(4):1311-1318). The approach incorporates
essential aspects of natural flow variability-based, specific hydrologic indices, and a stream class validation
procedure using empirical biological data. In this case, using the selected stream type described above, existing
biological data will be examined to determine how it can be used to develop flow relationships with wild
brown trout population parameters. This sub-task will be dependent on the availability of streamflow data and
wild brown trout population for streams that belong to the same class as the streams in the Pocono Creek
Watershed. If applicable population data are not available, an attempt would be made to use applicable
literature-based information. Also, additional criteria for sustainability were identified. Development of infor-
mation on the effects of build-out and withdrawals on various streamflow statistics (EPA-ORD) and other
"Indicators of Impact" measures are to be integrated into the technical reports.
Currently, the Technical Team is preparing report presentations for the Steering Committee and the
Management Strategy Development Team. Three members of the Education and Outreach Team are attending
the EPA Region 3 training on social marketing, an innovative approach to program development that uses
com-mercial marketing techniques to address environmental issues.
F. Innovative Watershed Community Outreach and Education Effort: The Brodhead Watershed
Association is implementing their innovative community watershed event, through the installation throughout
the watershed of 25 66-inch fiberglass trout that will be painted by artists. The "Trout Trails and Tales" project
will have a discovery trail of trout throughout the greater watershed community. Each trout will have a tale to
tell about the inter-relationships among land use, streamflows, and sustaining healthy trout population. The
community response is very strong, and participation is expected to be very high.
Next Steps: The development of watershed management strategies will use the technical findings to
develop ways to retain the existing high-quality conditions while balancing the need for growth in the
watershed. The strategies may include regulatory as well as technical measures, involving multiple levels of
government and various water resource disciplines.
The Education and Outreach Team strategy involves: (1) converting the technical report's scientific
terminology into common language; (2) identifying target audiences and their roles in utilizing the manage-
ment strategies; (3) further developing the innovative program that effectively presents management strategies
to the targeted audiences; and (4) implementing the education and outreach effort, "Trout Trails and Tales."
The USGS Groundwater Model and EPA-ORD Distributed Hydrologic Model have been developed, and
final reports are expected in August. The models have established existing conditions and projected outcomes
from withdrawals and development impacts. Using a 20-year framework and build-out scenarios, the impacts
from withdrawals on baseflow and from development on flow were determined.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 11
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Moving Toward Sustainable Production
Terri Goldberg
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association, Boston, MA
For more than 15 years since the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act, manufacturers and government
agencies have consistently faced the challenge of poor information systems for evaluating pollution prevention
(P2) opportunities. Successful pollution prevention is based on an entity's ability to understand and improve its
choice and use of materials and the associated financial impacts.
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA) and the Massachusetts Office of
Technical Assistance (OTA) for Toxics Use Reduction are currently collaborating to develop and pilot test a
materials use and profitability software tool called Energy & Materials Flow & Cost Tracker (EMFACT). This
research project will build on the current application of environmental management accounting as a critical
aspect of sustainable production and P2.
The primary beneficiaries of this project will be those companies and organizations that implement this
environmental management accounting tool to aid them in setting P2 priorities, identifying value-added
opportunities for sustainable production, and implementing other materials and energy efficiency
improvements. State and local environmental and technical assistance programs as well as private-sector
consultants will benefit by having the tool to help their client companies identify P2 opportunities and quantify
the benefits and costs.
NEWMOA has contracted with SYS Technologies to develop the EMFACT tool and to provide training
support. SYS Technologies was selected by NEWMOA and the Massachusetts OTA after a lengthy pro-
curement process and competition among a number of highly qualified vendors. NEWMOA anticipates that a
beta version of EMFACT will be available by the end of 2007 and hopes to post the final tool for free
download on its Web site by late spring 2008.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 12
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Bringing Global Thinking to Local Sustainability Efforts: A Collaborative Project
for the Boston Metropolitan Region
Paul Raskin, James Goldstein, Sudhir ChellaRajan, and Philip Vergragt
Tellus Institute, Boston, MA
Project Goals and Objectives: Although there is widespread implicit recognition of the global nature of
Sustainability, global considerations generally have not been incorporated and acted on in local/regional
Sustainability efforts. Moreover, local Sustainability initiatives are typified by the absence of science-based
methods and do not emphasize global drivers, impacts, and opportunities for action.
The objective of this research project was to support sustainable regional planning by providing tools and
methods that promote preventative planning in an integrated social-economic-environmental systems frame-
work. Short-term goals were to: (1) develop scenarios using the latest science that considers the social,
environmental, and economic elements of Sustainability from a global perspective; (2) inform citizens and
policy-makers, including the ongoing MetroFuture regional planning process, concerning Sustainability and
alternative pathways for the region; and (3) promote networking of existing planning efforts taking place at
different scales in the region.
Approach: Long-range planning for Sustainability poses the challenge of indeterminacy—ignorance,
surprise, and human volition. A scenario approach offers a powerful way to examine the forces shaping our
world, the uncertainties that lie ahead, and the implications for tomorrow of trends and actions today. Building on
the rich data already developed by our partners at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, The Boston
Foundation, and others, this project used Tellus Institute's PoleStar decision-support system to explore the
Sustainability of three alternative long-range scenarios for the Boston metropolitan region: Business-As-Usual
(BAU), Policy Reform, and Deep Change. The scenarios assess alternative futures to 2050 in both qualitative
and quantitative terms for a range of dimensions, including: demographics, economic activity, equity, trans-
portation, agriculture and food, energy use, and C02 emissions. This project relied on inputs from the
MetroFuture visioning process and a diverse Project Advisory Committee. To impact the public dialogue about
the future trajectory of the region, the scenario results were shared with the MetroFuture regional planning
effort, the Project Advisory Committee, and others.
Preliminary Findings: This project demonstrated the value of creating normative scenarios with
Sustainability targets and backcasting to identify plausible pathways for achieving desired futures. The Deep
Change scenario was a powerful alternative that helped reframe the MetroFuture long-range regional planning
process and impacted other initiatives in the region. It also showed that technological and policy initiatives
were necessary but insufficient to reach certain Sustainability targets (e.g., 80% C02 reduction), and that
lifestyle changes also were required.
Significance of Findings: This project demonstrated a model approach for linking regional Sustainability
initiatives with global considerations through a combination of engagement, visioning, integrated Sustainability
scenarios, backcasting, and tracking of Sustainability indicators. The analytical tools, data, and lessons learned
in this project are readily transferable to other planning efforts. The further development of PoleStar has
upgraded the key analytical tool used in this project, and improved its usability by other localities, regions, and
states.
Next Steps: The results of the Boston regional scenarios will continue to be used by Tellus Institute and
collaborators to inform policy and planning processes, including MetroFuture, regional transportation efforts,
and state Sustainability and climate change initiatives. In addition, the project team will document the project
through a final report, and disseminate the project approach, tools, and lessons through the project Web site,
published articles, and other means.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 13
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Using Market Forces To Implement Sustainable Stormwater Management
Dan Vizzini, DaveKliewer, Gordon Feighner, JimMiddaugh, Craig Shinn, and Mary Wahl
Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland, Portland, OR
Objective of the Research: Portland recognizes the need to move beyond regulation, utility rates, and
public infrastructure to achieve long-term sustainability goals. The City's Sustainability agenda must include
strategies that animate and direct market and social forces, expand public awareness, establish a green
economy, increase private stormwater investments that produce multiple watershed benefits, and foster
sustainable private behaviors at home, work, and play. Markets are the "place" where the social, economic, and
ecological principles of sustainability are integrated and leveraged.
This research project was begun in July 2006, to test the feasibility of using market mechanisms to achieve
city stormwater, watershed, and sustainability goals. The study is organized into three phases:
1. Phase I was completed in July 2007, and identified the costs and capacity of building public
stormwater management infrastructure in the city's combined sewer basins; the cost and effectiveness
of alternative structural and nonstructural stormwater management practices (BMPs); and the
feasibility of using market mechanisms to increase private investments and reduce public investments.
2. Phase II will produce in-depth evaluations of the feasibility of market mechanisms, leading to the
selection of one or two mechanisms for testing and evaluation.
3. Phase III will implement pilot projects in the city's combined sewer basins to assess the performance
of the selected market mechanisms.
Progress Summary/Accomplishments: Phase I concluded in July 2007, and produced the following
work products:
*> Updated cost estimates to design, install, maintain, and operate 20 different stormwater BMPs.
*> Updated effectiveness measures for each BMP focused on volume, flow rate, and water quality
including sediment, zinc, pathogens, and phosphorous.
*> BMP evaluations of ecosystem services, including air quality, carbon, flooding, terrestrial and aquatic
habitats, heat island effect, and quality of life.
*> Factors that constrain the use of individual BMPs, including land uses, soils, slope, and depth to
groundwater.
*> An evaluation tool to determine the most effective mix of BMP investments to achieve a variety of
system, policy, regulatory, financial or sustainability goals within the city's combined sewer basins.
*> Several runs of the tool to determine the feasibility of market mechanisms to achieve stormwater,
watershed, and ecosystem goals.
Phase I produced the following findings: (1) There are enough potential suppliers to support a market-
place. (2) There is a sufficient differential in the price of stormwater BMPs to realize savings from a
marketplace, or achieve higher levels of stormwater management and ecosystem benefit for the same
investment. (3) Portland can stimulate demand and animate a market by targeting public investments,
incentives and regulations; however, the costs of a credit trading system may far exceed its benefits. (4) The
city is well positioned to stimulate a local green economy, use reverse auctions, and employ creative marketing
strategies to increase private investments in stormwater facilities. These strategies should be integrated into the
city's stormwater and sustainability initiatives. (5) Additional work on the stormwater evaluation tool is
needed to support the targeting of market strategies and pricing of public incentives. (6) Effective
sustainability policies require much more work on the valuation of ecosystem services associated with
stormwater BMPs and other investment strategies.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 14
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Ecological Sustainability in Rapidly Urbanizing Watersheds: Evaluating
Strategies Designed To Mitigate Impacts on Stream Ecosystems
Margaret A. Palmer , Meosotis Curtis , Keith VanNess , Amy Hennessey , and Kevin Kelly
University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD; Montgomery County Government
(Maryland), Department of Environmental Protection, Rockville, MD;
3Environmental Systems Analysis, Annapolis, MD
Project Goals and Objectives: Urbanization has profound impacts on the hydrology and ecology of
streams via alteration in water temperatures, peak and base flows, and nutrient, sediment, and contaminant
inputs. Storm water management (SWM) is commonly used to reduce these impacts; however, comprehensive
watershed-scale studies to determine the effectiveness of SWM designs in reducing ecological impacts are
scarce. With the continuing trend of urbanization, there is an urgent need to more fully understand which
SWM designs are most effective and why, so that policymakers are better equipped to address the
Sustainability of water resources.
In 2000, the State of Maryland adopted new SWM criteria to address the impacts of urbanization on
stream ecosystems. Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Environmental Protection initiated a
project in 2002 to evaluate the effectiveness of new SWM practices. Our partnership significantly expands the
scientific scope of that project to determine the effectiveness of SWM on mitigating the impact of urbanization
on receiving streams. Critical questions will be answered using an empirical research design that focuses on
multiple stream reaches within three watersheds currently being developed with the most advanced SWM
technologies; one watershed developed using older SWM designs; and a largely forested (control) watershed.
The timing of this study also allows us to collect data during the construction phase of development, prior to
the conversion of sediment-trapping devices to SWM controls.
Approaches: This research project evaluates the structural and functional responses of stream ecosystems
to new SWM designs using a variety of metrics, including: discharge, rainfall-to-runoff ratios, channel
geomorphology, bed particle size and mobility, suspended sediment loads, water quality, macroinvertebrate
community composition, nutrient uptake, and whole stream metabolism. Data collection occurs at various time
scales ranging from daily (hydrological metrics), to seasonally (water quality, functional metrics), to annually
(geomorphological and community metrics).
Significance of Findings: This project is unique because of the opportunity to strengthen and expand a
county effort, because it is scientifically comprehensive (structural and functional responses evaluated at
watershed-level scales before, during, and after urban development); replicated (multiple watersheds for each
SWM design with multiple study reaches within each watershed); and controlled. Because the conversion of
sediment-trapping devices to SWM structures has been slower than expected, much of the current data reflect
the impacts of the construction phase on receiving streams (including dramatic responses by macroinvertebrate
communities and channel morphology). Additionally, some of the results have indicated that "treatment"
effects (i.e., SWM) are masked by larger local phenomenon such as local geology and potentially land use
history. This study will have implications for the development and maintenance of SWM well beyond our
region becasuse Maryland's SWM program is used as a model for many states and will provide feedback
regarding the impacts of active development on stream ecosystems.
Future Prospects: Future work includes the continued monitoring of our five study watersheds as the
conversions to SWM structures are completed and expanded to examine the interplay between larger
preexisting regional scale conditions (geology, land use history, etc.) and SWM treatments.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 15
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Integrating Water Supply Management and Ecological Flow Water Requirements
Mark P. Smith1, Colin Apse1, Brian Joyce2, Yongxuan Gao3, Richard Vogel3, Stacey Archfield3,
and Jack Sieber2
1 The Nature Conservancy, New Paltz, NY;2 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden;
3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA
This research project provides an approach for defining "sustainable yield" for water supply reservoirs.
We define the term "sustainable yield" for water supply reservoirs as "the amount of water that can be reliably
supplied to meet human needs while meeting key downstream ecological flow requirements." This study
builds on the growing literature regarding the relationship between storage, streamflow needs, and demand
management to offer an approach for incorporating ecological flow requirements into water supply reservoir
management operations. The trade-offs of different reservoir release policies were quantified on the water
yield for human uses, the trade-off between different types of reservoir release policies and the ability to
achieve different ecological objectives, and how the relative size of the reservoir affects these trade-offs. In
addition, a series of modifications to these release policies were identified that improve the ability to maintain
or restore certain key ecological flow components while maximizing the water available for human use.
Finally, how the use of various drought management and demand management policies, in addition to the
reservoir release policies, further maximize the ability of water resource managers to meet both human and
ecological needs were quantified. By examining a spectrum of typical release and demand management
policies, we are able to demonstrate that a "sustainable yield" for a water supply reservoir can be quantified,
and that this yield is often 35 to 80 percent of the yield predicted by more traditional definitions of "safe yield"
that include no ecological flow requirements.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 16
-------
Appendices
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability (CMS) Workshop
Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
November 8-9, 2007
Four Points by Sheraton
1201 K Street, NW
Washington, DC
AGENDA
Thursday, November 8, 2007
7:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. Registration
8:00 a.m. - 8:10 a.m. Welcome - EPA's Sustainability Research Strategy
Alan Hecht, Director for Sustainable Development, EPA, Office of
Research and Development (ORD)
8:10 a.m. - 8:15 a.m. Introduction to the Meeting
Leanne Nurse, EPA, ORD, National Center for Environmental Research
(NCER)
8:15 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. CNS Project Presentations
• Harnessing the Hydrologic Disturbance Regime: Sustaining Multiple
Benefits in Large River Floodplans in the Pacific Northwest
Stanley Gregory, Oregon State University
• Multi-Objective Decision Model for Urban Water Use: Planning for a
Regional Water Reuse Ordinance
Paul Anderson, Illinois Institute of Technology
• Sustainable Sandhills: A Plan for Regional Sustainability
Susan Pulsipher, Sustainable Sandhills
• Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Juan Lara, Universidad Metropolitana
Carlos Padin-Biblioni, Universidad Metropolitana
• Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Stuart Schwartz, University of Maryland-Baltimore County
10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Break
-------
Thursday, November 8, 2007 (continued)
10:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. CNS Project Presentations (continued)
• Sustainable Watershed Management in the Delaware River Basin
Charles App, Delaware River Basin Commission
• Moving Toward Sustainable Manufacturing Through Efficient
Materials and Energy Use
Terri Goldberg, Northeast Waste Management Officials'
Association (NEWMOA)
• Bringing Global Thinking to Local Sustainability Efforts: A
Collaborative Project for the Boston Metropolitan Region
James Goldstein, Tellus Institute
12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Lunch (on your own)
2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Program Meetings at EPA
EPA program offices are hosting interactive conversations with CNS grantees and other federal, state,
and local sustainability leaders.
Participants will report on action items from last year's CNS workshop. Grantees will briefly review
their project findings and consider future actions that can support EPA's sustainability goals.
Session I: Sustainability, Water, and Ecological Services
EPA Host: Jamal Kadri, EPA, Office of Water
Location: EPA, ORD Offices, 1025 F Street, NW, Washington, DC,
Room 3220 (Call-in Number: 1-866-299-3188, Code
2023439815#)
• Harnessing the Hydrologic Disturbance Regime: Sustaining Multiple
Benefits in Large River Floodplains in the Pacific Northwest
Stanley Gregory, Oregon State University
• Multi-Objective Decision Model for Urban Water Use: Planning for a
Regional Water Reuse Ordinance
Paul Anderson, Illinois Institute of Technology
• Integrating Water Supply Management and Ecological Flow Water
Requirements
Stacey Archfield, Tufts University
• Using Market Forces To Implement Sustainable Storm Water
Management
Dan Vizzini, City of Portland
-------
Thursday, November 8, 2007 (continued)
Session I: Sustainability, Water, and Ecological Services
(continued)
• Ecological Sustainability in Rapidly Urbanizing Watersheds:
Evaluating Strategies Designed To Mitigate Impacts on Stream
Ecosystems
Laura Craig, University of Maryland
Keith Van Ness, Montgomery County Department of Environmental
Protection
• Sustainable Watershed Management in the Delaware River Basin
Charles App, Delaware River Basin Commission
• Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Stuart Schwartz, University of Maryland-Baltimore County
• Integrating Water Supply Management and Ecological Flow Water
Requirements
Stacey Archfield, Tufts University
Session II: Geographic Information, Future Scenarios, and Land
Development
EPA Host: John Thomas, EPA, Office of Policy, Economics
and Innovation, Smart Growth Program
Location: EPA, ORD Offices, 1025 F Street, NW, Washington, DC,
Room 3321 (Call-in Number: 1-866-299-3188,
Code 2023439699#)
• Sustainable Sandhills: A Plan for Regional Sustainability
Susan Pulsipher, Sustainable Sandhills
• Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Carlos Padin-Biblioni, Universidad Metropolitana
Juan Lara, Universidad Metropolitana
Session III: Industrial Ecology and Lean Manufacturing
EPA Host: Mitch Kidwell, EPA, National Center for Environmental
Innovation, Lean Manufacturing Team
Location: EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Room 4119 (Meeting onsite only;teleconferencing not
available - notes will be posted on NCS site.)
• Moving Toward Sustainable Manufacturing Through Efficient
Materials and Energy Use
Terri Goldberg, Northeast Waste Management Officials'
Association (NEWMOA)
-------
Thursday, November 8, 2007 (continued)
5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Dinner (on your own)
6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Guest Speaker: George Hawkins, Director, District of Columbia
Department of the Environment
"Sustainability and the Future of Distributed Environmental Decision
Making"
Discussion facilitated by Theresa Trainor, National Estuary Program
Leader, EPA, Office of Water
Friday, November 9, 2007
8:00 a.m.-8:15 a.m. Welcome
Leanne Nurse, EPA, ORD, NCER
8:15 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. Panel 1: Water Resource Protection
Audrey Levine, EPA, ORD, National Program Manager, Drinking Water
Bonnie Thie, EPA, Office of Water, Policy, Communications and
Resource Management
Stuart Schwartz, University of Maryland-Baltimore County
(CNS Grantee - Cuyahoga Sustainability Network)
9:45 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. Panel 2: Clean Energy and Climate Change
Robert Ritter, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Planning Capacity Building Team
Graham Pugh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy and
International Affairs, Climate Change, Policy and Technology
Hannah Campbell, U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Climate
Program Office
Sherri Hunt, EPA, ORD, NCER
11:15 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Break
-------
Friday, November 9, 2007 (continued)
11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. CNS Project Presentations (continued)
• Integrating Water Supply Management and Ecological Flow Water
Requirements
Stacey Archfield, Tufts University
Richard Vogel, Tufts University
• Using Market Forces To Implement Sustainable Storm Water
Management
Dan Vizzini, City of Portland
• Ecological Sustainability in Rapidly Urbanizing Watersheds:
Evaluating Strategies Designed To Mitigate Impacts on Stream
Ecosystems
Laura Craig, University of Maryland
Keith VanNess, Montgomery County Department of Environmental
Protection
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Group Lunch/Networking (individually paid)
Ristorante Luigino, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
(202)371-0595
3:00 p.m. Adjournment
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Workshop
November 8-9, 2007
Four Points by Sheraton
1201 K Street, NW
Washington, DC
PARTICIPANTS LIST
John Abraham
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Anderson
Illinois Institute of Technology
Charles App
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stacey Archfield
Tufts University
Diana Bauer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hannah Campbell
U.S. Department of Commerce
Russell Conklin
U.S. Department of Energy
Tina Maragousis Conley
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Laura Craig
University of Maryland
Terri Goldberg
Northeast Waste Management Officials'
Association
James Goldstein
Tellus Institute
Stanley Gregory
Oregon State University
David Guest
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sally Gutierrez
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
George Hawkins
District of Columbia Department of the
Environment
Alan Hecht
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sherri Hunt
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Maria Juncos-Gautier
Universidad Metropolitana
Jamal Kadri
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Juan Lara
Universidad Metropolitana
Audrey Levine
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Leanne Nurse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Carlos Padin-Bibiloni
Universidad Metropolitana
Graham Pugh
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
Susan Pulsipher
North Carolina Department of Commerce
April Richards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Ritter
U.S. Department of Transportation
Ellen Rubin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Christopher Saint
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Adam Sarvana
Inside Washington Publishers
Stuart Schwartz
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Anne Sergeant
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bernice Smith
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Greg Susanke
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bonnie Thie
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John Thomas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Keith Van Ness
Montgomery County Government, Maryland
Contractor Support
Maria Smith
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Mary Spock
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
-------
1/30/2008
Harnessing the hydrologic disturbance regime:
Sustaining multiple benefits in large river
floodplains in the Pacific Northwest
Dr Stnn Grpgnryt Oregon State University
Prof. DaveHulse, University of Oregon
Dr. Roy Haggerty, Oregon State University
Baker etal. 2004
Ecological Applications
1995
Baker etal. 2004
Ecological Applications
1850
Climate Changes in Pacific Northwest
Warmer climate
Decreased summer precipitation
Changes in temperature appear more
certain than changes in precipitation.
-------
1/30/2008
Longitudinal Warming
Longitudinal Warming
s
0)
Q.
E
Removal of riparian vegetation
increases the rate of longitudinal
warming
But not the downstream maximum
temperature
Distance From Source
5
0)
Q.
2-4°C
Increased average air temperature
increases the downstream
maximum temperature
Distance From Source
Longitudinal Profile
Approaches being considered to
meet TMDL requirements:
Refrigeration higher certainty
Shade •
Flow augmentation •
Floodplain restoration greater benefits
-------
1/30/2008
_J
-------
1/30/2008
Norwood Island Slough (Aug 11 -21)
Floodplain Alcoves
65% of sites colder
than mainstem
39% more than 2°C
colder than
mainstem
-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
A Temperature BetweenAlcove and Mainstem
Alcoves on Gravel Bars
Side Channels
27% of sites colder
than mainstem
13% more than 2°C
colder than
mainstem
-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
A Temperature BetweenAlcove and Mainstem
25% of side channel
sites were colder
than mainstem
None of the side
channels were >2°C
colder than
mainstem
-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
A Temperature Between Side Channel and
Mainstem
Influence of Hyporheic Inflow on Temperature
Influence of Shade on Temperature
Hyporheic Inflow Temperature °C
Changes in 7 Day Average Maximum Daily Temperatures in a
small alcove for range of possible hyporheic inflow temperatures
-•—Segment 2
+ error
- error
Changes in 7 Day Average Maximum Daily Temperatures in a
small alcove for range of possible shade cover
-------
1/30/2008
..- • •
r
•: -• -
-------
1/30/2008
77 ((
iS?jjL«-±.5J.--^L '±A >_a J?^!fctl 1X* W** 1M» ISW*
Eugene
reerl
d
-------
1/30/2008
Assessment Tools for Past, Present,
and Future Ecological Trajectories
Dynamic visualizations of trajectories of
ecological change and demonstration of
hyporheic processes
Prioritization system for river conservation
and restoration
Assessment Tools for Past, Present,
and Future Ecological Trajectories
Assessment of thermal patterns and
strategies for restoration of cold water
refuges
Development of an ecological credit
trading system
Trading Credits in Willamette Exchange
Thermal credits
Wetlands credits
Carbon credits
Market-Based Trading System
Stxiiit ]iilminulit>,
Vikm.pttxcfUiii JL IIHII
: iSL
"CWJlU y
—
BHJWB
MMMM
Policy Application an thv LandH.'iip«
Future Directions
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board has
funded a 3-yr study offish use of cold water
refugesto determine whetherthe restoration
of cold water habitats would have a positive
effect on designated beneficial uses under
the Clean Water Act.
-------
1/30/2008
Future Directions
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board has
funded a 3-yr study offish use of cold water
refuges to determine whetherthe restoration
of cold water habitats would have a positive
effect on designated beneficial uses.
Future Directions
Measure composition offish
assemblages in habitats colder and
warmer than mainstem river
Implant temperature loggers and
radios in cold water species
Determine movement
between cold water refuges
Credit Trading Sequence
Willamette Partnership
Technical assistance provided by
cooperators
Agencies, NGOs, Extension agents
Evaluate site potential
Plan restoration actions
Identify regulatory requirements
Register credits with Willamette Exchange
Sell to credit buyer or aggregators
Seller tracks and reports performance
Application of Research
Willamette Explorer Website for public,
watershed councils, and students
Conservation and restoration
opportunities template adopted by state
of Oregon
Southern Willamette basin communities
developed Region 2050 Plan for water
resources based on alternative futures
Application of Research
Green Island Restoration Project
incorporates research and concepts in
designing and monitoring restoration
Willamette Exchange credit trading
system based on thermal research
Oregon Sustainability Investments
Program will use Willamette River
prioritization approach to locate and
design major restoration efforts
8
-------
1/30/2008
Restoration Priorities
Restoration Priorities
o
~ 0.50
*;»
•«'..:'
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Biophysical Potential for Restoration
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Floodplain Distance (km)
200 220 240
Conservation Priorities
Conservation Priorities
Low Ec^ogical Potential
High Social Constraint
High Ecojfgical Potential
Low Social Const rath t
Biophysical Index
'ifj
20 40 60
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Floodplain Distance (km)
Model Parameter
Green Island
(Small alcove)
CBHE=Coefficient of Bottom Heat Exchange
AF=Alcove Flux
Shade=Topographic and Vegetative Shading
BETA=Solar Radiation Absorbed at Surface
TSEDF=Sediment Reflection of Solar Radiatioi
wsc ""'"CBHE
Model Parameter
-------
1/30/2008
Conclusions
Alcove size and flux largely determines
meteorological impact
Large alcoves more affected by meteorological
conditions (shade, wind, etc.) because of large
surface area and long residence times
• Small alcoves more affected by advection and
residence time (and therefore by hyporheic
processes) because of small surface area and
short residence times
Conclusions - Small Alcoves
Hyporheic temperature (or the temperature of any
subsurface inflow) is the main driver of small alcove
temperature
Lag time of hyporheic flow determines its
temperature
Lag time of hours to days can produce water that is out of
phase with mainstem but with the same avg. temperature
Lag time of months or longer will have lower avg. temp
than mainstem. However, long lag times are also
associated with low hydraulic conductivity and therefore
low tola I flow.
Conclusion - Restoration
Features conducive to subsurface flow (i.e.,
gravel bars) must be continuouslyformed
and maintained
This process is impaired by altered flow
regimes and bank hardening
Contribution to Sustainability
Provides the scientific basis for meeting thermal
TMDL goals by restoring coldwater refuges in a
large riverthrough a market-based collaborative
system.
Identifies locations of coldwater refuges
Models hyporheic influence on temperature
Creates dynamic visualization of complex information for
stakeholders
• Provides spatial frameworkfor decision makers
Works directly with stakeholders and environmental
agencies to solve environmental challenges
Contribution to Sustainability
Restoration projects that have been initiated by this
research will provide multiple ecosystem services:
Cold water
Nutrient uptake
Floodplain function
Riparian forest restoration
Channel and habitat complexity
Wildlife habitat
Recreation and aesthetic values for communities
Project Organization
Simulation
Model of
Hyporheic
Processes
-------
1/30/2008
Surprising Results
Coldwater refuges (3-8°C lower than mainstem)
were found in all study reaches.
Alcoves on floodplains exhibited the coldest
thermal environments.
Alcoves on gravel bars exhibited temperature both
colder and warmerthan the mainstem.
State environmental agencies have officially
accepted floodplain restoration to create coldwater
habitats as part ofTMDL permits.
Willamette Partnership used the project results and
dynamic visualizations to develop a market-based
system for restoration of the Willamette River
corridor.
Collaborators and Partners
Oregon State University
University of Oregon
Willamette Partnership
EPA Corvallis NHEERL, Western Ecology Division
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
City of Eugene, Oregon
McKenzie RiverTrust
Oregon Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
US Department of Agriculture
US Fish &Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
11
-------
1/30/2008
Water reuse:
An integral part of sustainable
water resource planning
Collaborative Science and Technology Network
for Sustainability Workshop
November, 2007
Acknowledgments
Partners
Illinois Institute of Technology
Illinois Waste Management and Research Cenl
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
Sponsor
US EPA Science to Achieve Results Program
Work conducted by
Yi Meng
Shihui Luo
Decision support for
sustainable growth
What do decision-makers need to know?
Demonstrate need for efficient water use
Water reuse education
Identify potential barriers and incentives
Provide tool for economic assessment
NE Illinois: Limited water sources
Minimum flow
requirements
\ Inland
Surface
Water ~
Aquifers
11%
Unknown resources
Falling water table
Lake
Michigan
86%
Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, Cal
-------
1/30/2008
Water reuse regulations
Federal
ase regulations
Guidelines for Water Reuse
25 states have regulations
16 states have guidelines
9 states without regulations or guidelines
Illinois reuse regulations
State level
• IEPA (land application)
Dept. of Public Health (cross-connections)
Regional (CMAP)
".. .recommended alternative is to evaluate a no-
discharge system, such as land application."
Municipal
Chicago's Water Agenda 2003
Village of Richmond Reuse Ordinance
Water reuse risks
Human health risks
Chemical contaminants of concern
Ecosystem risks
Chemical contaminants of concern
Nutrients
.. .there have not been any confirmed cases of
infectious disease resulting from the use of
properly treated reclaimed water in the U.S."
USEPA (2004)
Are there unconfirmed cases?
What about non-infectious disease?
How long does it take to see effects?
What about ecosystem risks?
What about incidental reuse?
Water reuse policy
IL Executive Order 2006-1
The mission statement
"To consider the future water supply needs of
northeastern Illinois and develop plans and
programs to guide future use that provide adequate
and affordable water for all users, including support
for economic development, agriculture and the
-------
1/30/2008
Kirie case study
Zones 1, 2 & 3
0 05 1
User clusters determine demand
Pipeline costs dominate
-------
1/30/2008
Feedback and response
Feedback
~ Chicago is an unusual case study
Response
~ Partnershi in Aurora, IL
Rationale
Collaborative efforts
.arming oroup
NE Illinois water resources planning
Facilitated by CMAP
Commerce & industry
Golf course & park district irrigation
Facilitated by ILWMRC
Future efforts
CMAP's regional planning tool
~ Identify potential reuse sites
Great Lakes regional water reuse
Growth in SE Wisconsin
Can we get more value from water?
Geothermal heat pumps
".. .the most energy efficient, envi
clean, and cost-effective space cor
systems available." (USEPA, 1993;
Benefits (USDOE, 1998):
~ Less energy consumption
Reduced carbon emissions
Dual-purpose distribution system
Integrated infrastructure
• Non-potable water supply
• Ground loop for heat pump system
Issues
• Economics
• Regulations
• Technology
-------
Susan Pulsbher
Land Use Team Leader
Sustainable Sane hills
Novembe
2007
CORE TEAM
Jon Parsons,
Sustainable Sandhills
Jeff Brown, CGIA
Susan Pulsipher,
Pete Campbell, US
F&WS
-------
FORT BRAGG/POPE AFB
JOINT LAND USE STUDY I
Subdivision sprawl -just north of base
a
mm®
m
Base Realignment & Closure
Relocation of Forces Command
(FORSCOM) & U S Army Reserve
Command (USARCOM) to Fort Bragg
• Military, DoD civilians, family members,
defense contractors
• Older military personnel, already have
degrees
• 25,000 plus people BRAC-RTF lead
Additions tO regular troops agency on military
realignment effects
Sustainability in the Sandhills
Sustaining Fort Bragg as a viable military
installation
Also important to economic health of surrounding
communities
Sustaining the local ecosystem so that
people continue to enjoy living here
Managing population and economic
growth to sustain (and improve) existing
environment
-------
What Are Land Suitability Maps?
What Are Land Suitability Maps?
Suitable = potential to have sustainable
value for a type of use
> Based on criteria
> Relative values /low to high
>AII locations rated
Not current land use
"Not predicting land use
Suitability for different uses
"Competing values
.est available data
>Simple and transparent models
Sandhills Objectives
Best available data
-Simple and transparent models
Relative values now
•Alternative futures next
Maps and statistics
Tools for supporting decisions
Criteria for Suitability
Framework (previous projects)
Workshops and score cards
• What makes an area suitable?
• How do we represent it on a map?
• Relative importance?
Focus groups
How near is near?
Ratings 1 to 9
Meeting needs
Created a set of tools that
• Graphically illustrate the competing potential uses of
land from a variety of viewpoints
• give developers and planners a way to assess a lot of
tactors quicKly Detore spending a lot or time ana
money on a piece of land or project
• Can be used in public hearings to inform the public of
relationships and possibilities
• Provide elected officials, developers & planners with
the same set of base data to work from when
assessing how land is best utilized for the well-being
of a community and region
-------
Modeling process
Data - obtained & merged
>Criteria buffers created from feature
classes
Converted to grid on 30-meter cell size
>Used ModelBuilderfor as much of data
preparation and manipulation as possible
/-Map algebra
Constructing a suitability map
> Industrial
> Commercial
> Residential
> Natural areas
>Working farmland
"Working forests
Commercial Development
Downtown Rockingham
Rule-Based Criteria
Markets and infrastructure (satisfying all
four is highest rating)
Near urban density and higher income
Near primary ioad
• In or near public water service area
• In or near public sewer service area
-------
Rule-Based Criteria
Rule-Based Criteria
Land constraints (any one of four lowers
the rating)
• Steep slope
• In floodplain
• Soils are wet (hydric)
In wetlands
Out of bounds for development
(not counted in map results)
Conservation lands
Water supply watershed critical and protected
areas
In large water bodies
Inside military installations
Commercial Suitability
-------
Development and Natural/Working ^nds Combined
• both high suitability
dlow-high
D high-low
O both low
Feedback
f- Modeling process designed to obtain feedback which
was immediately used to modify models
> Model design steps, documentation, and presentation
methods monitored and altered by members of
Sustainable Sandhills Land Use Team
> Beta version distributed to two planners for detailed
analysis against local knowledge. Feedback
incorporated into models and documentation
> Workshop with regional planners designed to obtain
feedback. Feedback incorporated into data utilized for
creation of Release 1; into release schedule and
approach with different stakeholder groups
urprising Result
Lessons
Enthusiasm of representatives from different
stakeholder groups
Frustration of local data holders and regional
transportation planners with CIS-based state
level transportation data; people KNOW their
local road systems
Delight when first planner to use maps tried the
maps on projects on her desk and the
information was relevant and informative
-------
-------
USTAINABLE SANDHILLS
EPA GRANT PROJECT
Lead organization on this
regional land use planning project.
RLUAC
RESULTS WILL BE:
used in2008JLUS
update (5 mile study area)
BRAC RTF
RESULTS WILL BE:
incorporated into
Comprehensive Regional
Growth Plan
Additions to project
From BRAC-RTF
• Added data for 3 new counties
• Predictive modeling
• New data layers for Release 2 (under review)
• From NC DOT
cultural data
• Revise models for Release 2
Collaboration
Development of suitability models involved many
individuals from different stakeholder groups
Feedback on beta version obtained from planners at
workshop in September; Release 1 run
Now distributing grid maps to planning offices
Preparing presentations for developers and related
groups
Providing information on project to elected officials by
short presentations at their regional meetings
Future
• formal presentations to agricultural community & elected officials
feedback gathered for future Release 2
Other collaboration
& spin-offs
Results being used in 2008 Joint Land Use Study update
(by RLUAC) of five mile area around Fort Bragg
Results will be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Regional Growth Plan of the BRAC-RTF
Both RLUAC and BRAC-RTF participating in suitability
map development & assisting with meeting logistics
SS project & models forming basis for military funded
land use modeling project covering another 13 counties
inSE NC(SECCURE, part of SERPPAS)
Original plan was to include the location of cultural
resources in model; data not available; grant just funded;
new partner - NC Dept of Transportation
Forming a Cultural Resources Team
Future
For More Information:
Use by planners, conservation groups, all types
of developers, extension agents, & elected
officials to inform decision-making
Release 1 findings incorporated into 2007 JLUS
and BRAC-RTF growth management plan
Annual update of data and redistribution of maps
(grid & PDF formats)
Development of Release 2 with cultural data and
predictive modeling added; feedback on data
layers & weighting incorporated
Susan Pulsipher
910-829-6384
Jon Parsons
ionparsons@.sustainablesandhills.orQ
(910)484-9098
httD://www.sustainablesandhills.orn
8
-------
Sustainability of Land Use in
Puerto Rico
Center for Sustainable Development Studies
School of Environmental Affairs
UNIVERSIDAD METROPOLITANA
Novembers, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Aim of our Project
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
The original and primary aim of our project is to develop a model using
geographic information systems (GIS) with a land use sustainability
index to provide a scientifically reliable tool to measure and monitor the
impacts of the progression of the urban built environment on the quality
and availability of land, ecosystems, and water in Puerto Rico for long
term sustainability.
Urban Sprawl:
Suburban expansion in the
San Juan Metropolitan
Area
How does your work meet the needs of environmental
decision making for sustainability?
Expected contribution:
Our work will provide an easy-to-use index model with indicators
that are fed with accessible and reliable information to evaluate
municipal land use plans towards sustainability.
The model will also provide a sustainable status of municipal land
use activities for public policy decisions.
Four municipalities are being used as case studies and the
outcomes will be transferable to the other municipalities.
The model could be transferable to other islands.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Sustainability challenges for land use decision making in Puerto Rico:
Why is the municipality (equivalent to township) the territorial unit for the
project?
• There are 78 municipalities in Puerto Rico's relatively small surface area
(8,870 km2) and the local Autonomous Municipality Act requires them to
have a land use plan although there is no an island-wide land use
sustainable framework to guide them at present (an island-wide land use
plan is still in process).
Municipalities are required to revise their land use plans every 8 years.
Puerto Rico is an island with a high population density (429 inhabitants per
square kilometers), topographical limitations, and a serious combination of
natural hazards.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Sustainability challenges for land use decision making in Puerto Rico
22% of the island is covered by urban expansion as defined by the US Census Bureau 2000, plus
built-up areas as delimitated by the CRIM (Municipal Revenue Collection Center). The impact of
low density development, based on the scattered patterns of the built up areas outside the official
urban areas defined by the U.S. Census, is significant and demonstrates the sustainability
challenge for land use in Puerto Rico.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico 5 W^B B Ijw
Sustainability challenges for land use decision making in Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Road System = 26,186.30 Km
Contributes to low-density development widespread across much of the island outward
from the urban centers in linear features following the extensive rural-road network and
some of the highways and routes.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico 6
-------
Sustainability challenges for land use decision making in Puerto Rico
Population Change and Change in Developed Land
Study Area in San Juan Metropolitan Area
Study area municipalities: Bayamon, Carolina, Catario, Guaynabo, San Juan, ToaAlta and Trujillo
Alto. Updated results from Universidad Metropolitana (2001), Puerto Rico's Road to Smart Growth.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Schematic overview of the project
External Advisory Committee:
Stakeholders, experts and partners
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Schematic overview of the project
Four primary components:
• Describe the current land use situation using selected indicators as stressors
and relievers (an evaluation of how close or far is the municipality from
Sustainability of land use) based on available and reliable information.
•Establish a base optimal land use based on benchmarks or planning
objectives for the selected indicators that will help measure positive or
negative change through time.
• Provide a land use sustainable index to measure status and progress.
• Receive constant feedback and collaboration for the decision making
process by stakeholders, experts and partners (External Advisory
Committee).
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Selection of indicators
1. Maturity (reliable metadata based on the best available
information)
2. Relevant and functional for land use planning at the municipal
level
3. Adaptable to different scenarios (78 municipalities)
4. Must be able to evaluate current situation and future tendencies
5. Have quantitative and qualitative value
A tentative group of indicators was •
selected by the Project Team with -m
the input of the Advisory Committee
composed mostly of local and federal
government agencies and municipal
officials (informed stakeholders
and experts).
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico 1 o
Tentative Selected Indicators (23)
i
Environmental
housing units.
density)
3. Percentage of officially protected land by federal, state and
municipal governments.
4. Population living in urban areas at 15 minutes walking
distancefrom parks and natural public open spaces.
5. Total solid waste generation per person per day.
8' Pe^?uta|9wa^ttgVenle^ond non-hazardouswastefrom total
7. CO' generation per passenger cars registered per year.
S. Percentage of houses in coastal hazard areas from total
housing units
10. Energy consumption per house per day
.;-.;-, .,...-,,....., '
Socio-economics
12. Percentageof active agricultural lands.
13. Percentageof residents that wot* in the same municipality.
14. Repopulation of urban areas (change in population density)
16. Percentageof families that receive public assistance.
17. Socio-economic Index
infrastructure
m '*ŁŁ&%ŁŁŁ" use bv residents * public
19- petX^i7s^crodutrr^:nentric
land.
The Project Team is preparing a Methodology
Report for the indicators with information
about the metadata.
ustainabilityof Land Use in Puerto Rico n -J^HH it*
\n= **
Tentative Selected Indicators (23)
Methodology Report will include for each indicator:
1. Measurement (what is being measured, description of the indicator)
2. Rationale/context for Sustainability of land use
3. Recommended benchmark or planning objective and why
4. Calculation
5. Units
6. Data collection methods and sources
7. Data collection year
8. Data collection frequency or frequency of measurement
9. Temporal and spatial format / reporting format
10. Limitations
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
-------
Tentative Selected Indicators
Stressors
Municipal Indicators
' . Idl'Hirri . :."••-.. ;•. (•.!:;• :!'.,;;• ne •».•--.
'' :•'. i ••',•• -••'!.: ait; ;-;•••(, "tin-is ir .;••;/•. •:•- ••;.•:>.
'", I'.™: •:•"•-'.•=: iflhr..jfiw .]. • • .>..--:•. i mi in! I hnuanij mi:
* :.•: -f :•••-.- •• .•'.-; ^ :>- r ••<• • .•iiraunds)
; :•. y ->,;•:,-., ?•= r-v J -^'crj'* i; n ''• •-• .. r-.,
,, • -.. ,-.^aj| .,...., ,.; = -:-.•,.;-,,.; ..... i f'.-r.i •>-! K •=-.; ".
:• •••.••iiV.ii.'i:',"!..-.1-- ',-,.;•.:• ."i-iV...-.!. -..,:•,'•! . U.Łi
r ra i" 'Jlity Index
'" 't,l!l ' ."-"I (itinnpei '>-:, • if .,.-'•,:., 1
1! if.; i. !•: in pf .i1... .• per TH ,: ' ', ";
• i ./•.-:..--»••>. [I.;L- ::.- . ;- •;% fiofnc .-,••: ,=,•...;.:
;'.- -•: new •"'•• •:'• •
. • •..,-;..•-.- .•.,• ,.-- •• - ,.,!,.! .issjstance
1
rsinst
42
-'.: •:•-.
•'•
9%
:'.',
166
'i.r-ii
54
':, .; :
. r-1.
1
>-.! 1
MA
11%
-951
164
> •- 1
133
.'••; •
Ij •.
1
1,023
0
816
4fil% 24'J%
7--
;; ;'.;
,M
; ..
022
164
4,049
91
:•>
•...! ••-
7%
13%
006
172
;.•"'-
98
••- :r.
Planing
Objective or
Benchmark
forthe
Indicator
0
'iff/
-20%
3'
-7%
-5%
0
C
.-,.
-:"••
c
10C
-10%
Benchmark
fortht
Indei
0
1 00
20%
500,000
5%
13%
2001
12'
5,50(
10(
10(
10%
Sighing
Scale
Ho 10
1.00
0.90
080
1.
1.00
080
080
2
1.
a
2
2
4.
With suggested objectives / benchmarks and weight.
Sustainabilityof Land Use in Puerto Rico 13 J^BB ...
Tentative Selected Indicators
Relievers
Municipal Indicators
' ,f''-:;''ra^sofofflclallTproteaedlandbTfederali5tateandmLiniclpal
"' .;;,,'• •-, •.'.':•••-• piGnft th; • • j'iriitii: hc.ic
•.' !>,(;'•!•• lec.1 -.=;'!* ™-.f.j: vcrkini! r •..• •,.;-/•.,
.,..., ,..,,,,., ,i;.,,= .,,;,. ..,,,„ .,,,. .^..rautetoumanarters
"" .^'',7^'^''r!/i:V'' *** '•'II' ^'W*******!"**"1
3 g^ o, ^cled sold non -nazardous ** ton, total annual «ae
s
33%
1
SGu'-i
29%
i
4%
1
-1 ' •>
Inj
9%
j
53%
1
• ! ' .',
roce;
1 5%
|
22%
1
.;. ".;
1 1%
Planning
Objective or
forth!
Indicator
30%
1
.!•
35%
Benchmark
tor the
Inde
30%
'.•: '..
nent
35%
Suggested
Weighing
Scale
1to 1C
0.80
0.60
1.70
1.78
2.00
3.20
2.30
6.00
With suggested objectives / benchmarks and weight.
Sustainabilityof Land Use In Puerto Rico 14
ISLA Composite Index Model
If LA* r
Relievers Index (Rl) and a
Stressors Index (SI)
ISLA ranges in value from 1 to 100, as do Rl
and SI individually. Rl is calculated as a
weighted geometric mean of individual reliever
indicators, each of which has been divided first
by a benchmark value. SI is calculated in the
same manner, but using stressor indicators. In
ISLA, the value 10 separates sustainability from
non-sustainability. At 10, Stressors and relievers
cancel each other. Below 10, Stressors outweigh
relievers. For values higher than 10, relievers
outweigh Stressors.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Preliminary results:
Ponce
Preliminary results
Caguas Barceloneta Carolina
ISLA
Composite Index 7.645 9.032 8.917 9.125
When the ISLA composite index model was run for the first time, all 4
municipalities used as case studies came out very low in sustainability (lower
than 10), a mirror of the unsustainable reality of land use trends in PR.
At this phase of the project, the research team is revaluating and validating
with the Advisory Committee and local experts the parameters used in the
model (benchmarks/planning objectives).
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
How have you responded to feedback from stakeholders?
Project integrates key public stakeholders through an Advisory Committee:
• 13 municipalities (4 as case study: Carolina, Ponce, Barceloneta, Caguas)
• 4 local government agencies (PRDNER, PRPB, PREQB, PRDA)
• 2 federal agencies (USFS, USDA)
Also included in the Committee:
Puerto Rico Planning Society
• Estudios Tecnicos, Inc. and
Advantage, Inc., 2 locally
economic and planning consulting firms.
Discussion meetings every two to three months:
Stakeholders provide feedback and present their evaluations of the different stages
of the project at the meetings.
The Project Team incorporates stakeholders feedback in the decision making
process: selection of indicators, weight and benchmarks for each indicator, and
possible planning objectives.
Sustainabilityof Land Use in Puerto Rico
Lessons Learned
Stakeholders' participation from the beginning resulted in successful
collaboration and interest on the results of the project for decision making.
Land use planning goals are being discussed and evaluated with
stakeholders as alternatives when there are no clear and agreed upon
benchmark for the indicators.
The municipality as a territorial unit poses difficulties in data collection and
analysis when the scope and origin of the land use activity has a regional
character.
The modeling method had to consider dissimilar conditions across
municipalities.
In Puerto Rico, reliability and availability of some data is a major challenge.
Sustainabilityof Land Use in Puerto Rico
-------
Update current/potential partners and potential clients who could
learn from your project, and best collaboration stories.
The regional economic
development operation INTENOR
(North Region) composed of 15
municipalities, 3 universities
(including ours) and several
private organizations, has a Land
Use Commission to establish a
cohesive regional land use plan.
Our composite index model could
be used for policies and decision
making. The University is also
assisting in two other similar
regional initiatives: INTECO
(Central West Region) and
INTENE (Northeast Region).
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Update current/potential partners and potential clients who could
learn from your project, and best collaboration stories.
The Puerto Rico Land Use Plan Act
(2004) - enacted to develop an island-
wide land use plan - also requires the
development of a set of indicators to
evaluate land use policies. This initiative
is still not finalized and had been halted
by the government due to pressure from
different economic sectors and for
political reasons. Nevertheless, agencies
involved in developing the plan are
members of the External Advisory Board
and are awaiting the final results
of our project.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Plan de Lso de Terrenes
de Puerto Rico
COB
Ways in which CMS funding and program have helped in enabling the
University to be in involved with other collaborative efforts or spin-off efforts?
Universidad Metropolitana (UMET) has been invited to collaborate in the
development of island-wide environmental indicators with the Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board.
UMET has also been invited to advise the regional initiatives INTENOR,
INTECO, and INTENE.
The Project Team was invited to present at the Puerto Rico Social Forum
at the University of Puerto Rico ( November 19, 2006).
The project enhances ongoing education-related initiatives at UMET,
especially the Puerto Rico version of ICMA and EPA's educational
publication Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation.
UMET has also been invited to participate in TV and radio programs.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Where do you foresee this work going in the future?
Objective tool to evaluate performance for Sustainability: Development of
Puerto Rico's State of Land Use for Sustainability Report where municipalities
will be ranked every four/eight years according to land use "eco-efficiency"
Initiative to spearhead public policy: Use of the Report and the index for
municipal ordinances and public policies (Example: The results of a previous
EPA's sponsored project at UMET - Puerto Rico' Road to Smart Growth - helped
enact three new Smart Growth and environmental-related acts. Specifically:
Urban Center Revitalization Act, San Juan Ecological Corridor Act, and Puerto
Rico Land Use Plan Act.
Collaborative agreements: Support to municipalities for specific land use
Sustainability projects (educational, research and public policy related project).
Further research based on lessons learned: Opportunities to fine tune some
indicators due to lack of reliable metadata at the present moment. Includes the
possibility to expand the indicators to a regional scale using watersheds or
regional municipal economic initiatives as territorial planning units.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Questions and Feedback Welcome
Contacts
Dean SEA- Carlos M. Padin, Ph.D. - cpadin@suagm.edu
PI - Jose Rivera Santana -jers1955@hotmail.com
CSDS Director- Maria Juncos- um_mjuncos@suagm.edu
Center for Sustainable Development Studies (CSDS)
School of Environmental Affairs (SEA)
Universidad Metropolitana - Bayamon
PC Box 278
Bayamon, PR 00960-0278
(787) 765-1717, extensions 6410, 6412
(787)288-1100, extension 8251
Fax:(787)288-1995
-------
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Stu Schwartz Center for Urban Environmental Research &
Education
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Allen Bradley H.HR Hydroscience & Engineering
University of Iowa
Brian Mikelbank
Terry Schwarz
Levin College of Urban Affairs
Cleveland State University
Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative
Kent State University
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Contributions to Sustainable Decision Making:
Fill Key Information Needs to Foster and Support Sustainable
Land Transformation Decision-Making
- Landscape Influences on Environmental Services
- Urban Hydrology and Sustainable Landscapes
- Economic Demand for Environmentally Sustainable Design
- Multiobjective Decision Making
Stormwater Management
Pervious Concrete
Infiltration Design
Natural
Systems
Spatial Optimization
BioReserve Design
Urban Forestry
Cuyahoga Sut
Hedonic Analysis
Conservation Design
RiParian Setbacks
Social
Systems
Home Rule
Riparian Setback Zoning
Community Sense of Place
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Surprising Results:
- Suburban History - Ghosts of Landuse Past
- Pervious Runoff
- Planning & Development in a Home Rule State
- Hedonic Analysis — Price Signals for Environmental Design
- Pervious Concrete - Cold Weather Performance & Design
- Urban Forest Services
Economic Sustainability:
Hedonic Price Analysis
Conservation Design
Riparian Setback Zoning
New Urbanisni
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
\n Oiimumn-
llt-itl l-Miilr nin
nl .11.1 n>
-------
Cuyahoga Susta inability Network
Cleveland's Urban Forest
Annual Air Quality Benefits ~$3 billion
•Cuyahoga County Green Print
•Cleveland Metroparks
•City of Cleveland Street Trees
"Train the Trainer"
D. Nowak, R. Pouyat
U.S. Forest Service
Northern Research Station
On a mission to add to greenery
Volunteers armed with computers collect data o;
Baltimore's trees
By Alia Malik Sunreporter July2S,2007
Hydrologic Services: . . „
* te Cuyahoga Sustamahility Network
Sustainable Landscapes & Pervious Concrete
Cleveland State University& Ohio Ready Mix Concrete Association
Pervious Concrete Test Plot
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Hydro logic Services:
Quantifying Site Infiltration
IIHR Digital Infiltrometer Controller
-------
CRWP
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
LID Performance i
Monitoring
EPA Notional Community *JU>
Decentralized Wastewater •
Demonstration Project
-Matt Morrison-EPANRML \
-USGS Ohio District
•Rain garden: max water level
•Pervious pavement outflow
•Pervious pavement soil moisture
(TDK nests)
•WQ: Temp & conductivity + TSS,
IP, Q, turbidity, total & dissolved
metals
•Parking lot surface runoff:
quantity and quality
| IR: 24.0 - 0.74 cm/hr
Cawrse & Associates — Chagrin River Watershed Partners
Suburbanization and Greenspace
Ghosts of Land Use Past
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Wade Oval Infiltration
Wade Oval Infiltration
1.8
cm/hr
0.33
cm/hr
< 0.3
cm/hr
-------
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Beyond Impervious Area-
Rain Gardens - etc?
CSWCD Rain Garden
Infiltration and Soil Compaction
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
CSWCD Rain Garden
Infiltration and Soil Compaction
CSWCD Rain Garden
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
"Engineered Topography"
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
~
-------
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
No-Mow Lawns
Cleveland Botanical Garden
City of Cleveland
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
No-Mow Lawns
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Results from CNS Funding
Enabled New Collaborations & Technology Transfer:
-U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station
Urban Forestry & Sustainable Landscapes
- Baltimore Ecosystem Study a NSF-LTER site
Urban Infiltration Studies —Cornell Infiltrometers
- Chesapeake Bay Trust - Pervious concrete Partnership
with CSU, MD-SHA, County Engineers, MDE,
MRMCA, MD-ASCE, MD-USGBC
Collaborator Updates
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
- CSU - Parker Hannifin Building - pervious concrete
- Chagrin River Watershed Partners — Cawrse Associates
- University Circle Corporation
- Cleveland Botanical Gardens — low-mow lawns
- City of Cleveland — Urban Street Trees
- Cuyahoga County Planning Commission - Greenprint
-Cuyahoga SWCD— compaction and lawn tillage
-------
Future Work
- Community Tree Survey in Cleveland
- Urban Forest Services:
Cuyahoga GreenPrint; Cleveland Metroparks; Cleveland Street
Trees
- Infiltration & Hydrologic Services:
Hydrologic function of rain gardens & urban pervious areas
Lawn treatment for infiltration
No-Mow lawns and lawn care — quality and function
- Pervious concrete partnerships in Chesapeake Bay
- Spatial Decision Models - New Color & IR Aerials and LIDAR
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Social Sustainability
Ghosts of Land Use Past
Euclid Golf:
Suburbanization & Greenspace
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Turf Amendment - Balousek 2003
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Feedback & Contacts
- Commoditizing Stormwater— Credits and Trading
- Automatically Derived Spatial (GIS/Remote Sensing) Metrics
of Sustainable landscapes & design
- Landscape Influences on Hydroecology
- Urban BMP cost-effectiveness
- Riparian Setback / Riparian Buffer Technical Literature
Euclid Golf
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
--0-.
-------
Environmental Sustainability
Hydrologic Services & Sustainable Landscapes
Pervious Concrete
Site Infiltration
Lawns & Green Spaces
Beyond Impervious Area
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Social Sustainability
Ghosts of Land Use Past
The Heights & Early Suburbanization
Rockefeller, Ambler, Wade
Euclid Golf
Deed Restrictions
Euclidean Zoning
Euclid v. Ambler
Shaker Nature Center and the Lee-Clark Freeway
7
-------
Two Ecoregions
Appalachian Plateau
Ridge & Valley
Pocono Creek Watershed Goals
Maintain high quality water quality
Preserve stream corridors and floodplains
Coordinate watershed planning process with other
levels of government
Maintain existing stream flow
Develop using village centers and
conservation design
- Establish an economy compatible
with the environment
Preserve open space
"S,". (!«».»
_r -•«««,
-------
Framework for Sustainable
Watershed Management
Approach: To use sound science to
develop water resource management
strategies and polices that local decision
makers a) adopt and b) implement.
Framework for Sustainable
Watershed Management
Stage 1 - Technical & Scientific Research
Stage 2 Development of Management
Strategies & Planning Tools
Stage 3 - Innovative Watershed Community
Event :
-------
Technical Stage
Completed Baseline Studies for:
Existing Water Budget
Ground Water/Surface Water Interface
Streamflow Statistics
Hydrologic Conditions
Existing Water Demands
Characterize hydrologic relationships between
baseflows and withdrawals
• Identify stressors for existing habitat
• Determine necessary conditions to maintain sustainable
flows in Pocono Creek Watershed
HYDROLOGY MODEL STUDY
RESULTS Based on Projected Build Out -
Recharge reduced in 26 out of 29 recharge areas
Daily Base Flow < 31 %
I nwFlnw7Q10< 11%,
Monthly Median Daily Flow < 10%
Monthly Peak of Daily Flows > by 21 %
Annual Maximum of Daily Flow > 19%
Watershed-averaged Groundwater Recharge < 31%
USGS MODFLOW-2000 Groundwater Flow
Model
Measured Effects on Base Flow from
Ground-Water Withdrawals
Reduced Recharge from Land Use Change
Three-dimensional model
- Entire Pocono Creek watershed
• Used EPA-ORD hydrology model recharge
values for 2000 land use & 2020 land use.
USGS MODFLOW-2000 Groundwater Flow Model
2020 Build-out:
Effects of withdrawals are ,
related to drainage area
Base flows < 38 to 100%
Groundwater withdrawals and surface
water withdrawals equally affect stream
flow
-------
and.
We Got HAT -
The Pocono Creek
Hydroecological Assessment Tool
Purpose of HIP
[s Streamflow and Stream Health
tier to maintain healthy aquatic
ystems
sustain or restore stream communities
sustain or restore stream integrity
Purpose of HAT
Establishes a hydrologic baseline to:
Determine environmental flow
standards, and
Assess alternate (future) conditions
Fundamental Scientific Principle
• Ecological integrity of river ecosystems
depends on their natural dynamic
character (Poff and others 1997).
i Altering flow regimes affects stream biota
in relation to the degree of alteration (Bunn
and Arthington 2002).
Dynamic Variables
9 FLOW COMPONENTS
Flow Conditions:
Frequency of Flow Events:
Duration of Flow Events:
Rate of Change in Flow Events
Ave., Low and High
Low Flow Events
nign MOW tvenis
Low Flow Conditions
High Flow Conditions
-------
Pocono Creek HIP
USGS Task A -
1) Classify streams - hydrologically &
develop flow standards (NJSCT?)
Characterize hydrologic alteration -
2000 baseline & 2020 'build out' -
( NJHAT or NATHAT?)
Distribution of Four NJ Stream Types
All perennial
Group B — GW influenced
High base flow, low
variability daily flow
Group D — small DA, low
base flow, highly variable
Groups A & C
intermediate B/D, low to
moderate daily flow
variability, moderate
baseflow, A small flood
Task A: Objective (1) -
Classify streams hydrologically
Used NJ Stream classification tool
INJ Stream I Pocono Sub Basins Percent
Type
, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16,1"
21, 24, 25, 28, 29
, 4, 8, 10,14, 19, 22, 23
-------
Start Again.
Returned to National
Classifications
National Classifications
Poffl996
•hwater 'Biology
Unregulated gages 806 & 420 "best" Nat, 35 PA.
11 indices, 10 stream types Nationally, 2 PA.
34 Perennial runoff low flood seasonality, high
seasonality of low flow.
Olden & Poff 2006 - River Research & Applications
-i 420 "best" unregulated, 24 PA.
ennial flash
Flow Standards & Alteration
Baseline vs. Build out SB 5
Graph hydrologic index data
Atemaive Hy*atoŁ c haw Range conpansons
Lower Bound - 25lh penrerfile
Jl
!„
.H
I.
t ,
p
Uppe* Bound •* TStfi pfacenflfc?
r^il rrY _
MA16 '^ttnT*' HHt FLJ^*-
- P.WHP5
*H*-^mitl OHH TLl THJ
- Ddk.< » t
B.v.
_Cj^™J
' Nw™t» 0 Gal
-------
Median Monthly Maximum Flow
Graph hydrologic index dat
Lower Bound - 25th percentile Upper Bound - 75th percentile
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4 MH5 MHti MH7 MH8 MH25%t - events/yr
%
Mean days/yr
.in part
SB 5 SB 9 SB 13
16-50 I 14-57 I 17^12 J
9-150 t 14-90 t -4 1-90 ]
11 11 1
I I
Pocono Creek HIP
Task B objectives -
_ If ..."Flow/trout data suitable for
developing testable hypotheses for
flow/trout relationship?
Test hypotheses.
Results?
Develop flow standards
October 31, 2007 Discussion
• Which sub basins? All 29 or 7?
• Establish environmental standards
and document Violations' or...
• Test flow/'trout' (change in
abundance) relationship.
• Or both?
• Time frame?
-------
IMMEDIATE FUTURE DIRECTION
Through the "Seven Doors" Social Marketing
adapted from Les Robinson, Social Change Media.
i 1. Knowledge/awareness Planning
i 2. Vision Creates Desire
i 3. bKins iviaKe it basy
i 4. Optimism Promote Benefits of Alternatives
i 5. Facilitation Implementation
• 6. Stimulation Watershed Community shares
event => Galvanizes action
• 7. Feedback and reinforcement
COLLABORATIVE INNOVATIVE
WATERSHED COMMUNITY EVENT
"Both science and art
have the capacity to help
us see much further
than our everyday economy
requires."
(Holmes Rolston III, Philosophy Gone Wild).
Linking Sustainability Message to
Watershed Community
New Watershed Partners!
Chamber of Commerce
Corporations
Arts League p5
University
Media
Local Officials
Residents
Tourists
PHASE II
FUTURE DIRECTIONS:
A. Local Protection Measures
• Developed
Adi
Implemented
-------
atershed Sustainability Indicators
Developed
• Promoted
• Adopted ^'
c. Economic Future Alternatives
Analysis
t
D. State Water Resources Protection
Measures Influenced
TRUE PARTNER
GOAL MADE POSSIBLE:
To Establish a Collaborative Community Process to Develop
Sustainable Watershed Practices Based on Sound Science.
bKA hunaea project: Ubub ana UKbu
EPA ORD Edison NJ and Cincinnati OH: Developed tools that
will be useful in other watersheds; Provided training, equipment, and
technical support.
EPA ORD, EPA Region 3 and EPA ORD CMS: Excellent
support and collaboration, No-Cost Extension, networking
opportunities, patience and good humor.
New Linkages with PA DEP, USGS Scif- Center, Ft. C
-------
• 1/30/2008
Energy & Materials Flow
& Cost Tracker (EMFACT)
Terri Goldberg
Northeast Waste
Management
Officials' Association
Background
Purpose & Scope
Development Process
Big Picture
Example
Features
Status
EMFACT Objectives
To assist small & medium-sized businesses in the
U.S. to:
-> Better track & understand the use & flow of
fuel, water, & materials through their
facility
-> Better understand the actual costs of poor
resource efficiency & subsequent waste
management
-> Improved business decision-making &
environmental performance
-> Implement a cycle of continuous
improvement via continuous tracking
EMFACT Products
An easy-to-use, well-documented tool to
assist small & medium-sized enterprises in
tracking:
• fuel, water, & materials use
• generation of air emissions, wastewater,
& solid/hazardous waste
• associated costs
-> User's guidance & training materials
-> Training for technical assistance providers
-> Online downloadable free access to the
software application & support materials
EMFACT Team
US EPA (funder)
Northwest Waste Management
Officials'Association (NEWMOA)
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance (Mass OTA)
SYS Technologies
EMARIC
Advisory Group (includes EPA)
Development Process
Engaged Advisory Committee, TURPAs, example
companies, & NEWMOA's Board
Developed a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP)
Held a vendors' meeting - Comments on Draft
Issued final RFP - Held bidder's conference
5 proposals submitted
Formed review committee
Selected SYS Technologies
Developed contract
Developed systems & data requirements
-------
• 1/30/2008
EMFACT Approach
User has the option to define:
• Organization (e.g., departments)
• Site & buildings
• Equipment, including waste management
equipment
• Inputs (fuel, water, materials, chemical
constituents)
• Intermediate & final products
• Non-product outputs (air, water, waste)
-> Link the components together
-> Populate with data, e.g., physical
quantities, costs, emission factors
-> Analyze & report
EMFACT Dashboard
EMFACT Navigation
Menu paths are provided for all windows.
Clicking an icon, button, or menu path will open a new window for the
indicated functionality.
EMFACT Example
Air Emissions from a Paint Booth
Define Process Equipment
Add Paint
Booth to the
Equipment
List - then
add details.
-------
• 1/30/2008
Define Input Materials
Define Non-product Outputs
In the case
of air
emissions,
determine
emission
factors for
different
pollutants.
Link Equipment, Inputs, & Outputs
Link the Paint
Input Material to
the Paint Booth
Equipment.
Inputs - Enter Usage Data
Outputs - AutO Calculated (in this case)
Emissions
are
automatically
calculated
in this case.
Outputs will
be manually
entered in
other cases.
Report
Review paint
usage with
computed
emissions by
month fit 12-
month
Irolling
totals.
-------
• 1/30/2008
-> EMFACT will also allow collection of
relevant cost data; this feature is in
an early stage of development.
-> Examples include:
« Materials purchase costs
« Waste management & disposal costs
« Others
Waste Shipments & Costs
The Waste
Shipment screen
allocates back to
the source,
i tracks cost data,
ft tracks other
waste shipment
information
(date, manifest,
vendor, etc.
Compliance Information
A survey of potential users told us - regulatory
compliance must be a component of EMFACT
So, EMFACT incorporates lists of regulated
chemicals; tool can flag & report on these
chemicals:
• SARA 313
• Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) - federal &
state
• Ozone Depleting Substances - Classes I & II
EMFACT also provides
• Ability for users to create their own chemical
lists
• Screens to list/describe permits
• A calendar with event reminders (e.g., permit
renewal)
Examples of Reminders
Reminder Details
Lists of Regulated Chemicals
-------
• 1/30/2008
What Kinds of Reports?
-> Lists of equipment & of materials/chemicals
-> Materials Use &/or Non-Product Output per
unit of product, per equipment, per
production unit, for entire facility
-> Materials Use - incorporated into product vs.
into non-product output
-> Various cost reports
-> SEARCH window will enable searching by a
variety of fields - output can be printed or
saved to Excel
Example-Solid Waste
Shipped Wiite Report. Shipment Com
Inul W*lgl* fa Ww* Typ* turibotrd
T» nun JIM
Example-Solid Waste
Example—Chemical Usage
MdMM CAHSunmwr • CAS.'KM-NHSun-TMry
Ch«ml
-------
• 1/30/2008
EMFACT Development Status
Development will continue for another
2-4 weeks
-> Early (team) testing is ongoing
-> Formal testing start target is
November - includes pilot training at
facilities
-» Launch vl in March 2008
(downloadable for free!)
For More Info...
http://www. newmoa. org/prevention/emfact
Terri Goldberg (NEWMOA):
tgoldberg@newmoa.org
Rick Reibstein (MASS OTA):
rick, reibstein (gtstate.ma.us
-------
Bringing Global Thinking to Local
Sustainability Efforts:
A Collaborative Project for the
Boston Metropolitan Region
.
James Goldstein
Tellus Institute
Boston, MA
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for
Sustainability Final Workshop
Project Purpose
Support sustainable regional planning by
providing tools and methods that promote an
integrated long-term systems approach.
- Develop alternative scenarios for Boston region,
including a normative scenario consistent with
sustainability and global responsibility
- Inform stakeholders about sustainability and
alternative pathways for the region
- Promote networking of existing planning efforts
taking place at different scales in the region
Project Collaborators and Partners
• Tellus Institute
• Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
(convener of MetroFuture project)
• The Boston Foundation (indicators Project)
• The Massachusetts State Sustainability
Program
• Project Advisory Committee & Work Groups
Metro Boston Region
Community Types
Scope of Work
Review and coordinate with MetroFuture process
Stakeholder consultation
Data collection, review and synthesis
Enhance PoleStar scenario building tool
Develop scenarios: BAU, Policy Reform, Deep
Change
Identify policy & other engagement opportunities
MetroFuture Planning Process
Coordinated by MAPC, regional planning agency
3-phase process:
- Stakeholder visioning
- Data analysis and scenario development
- Implementation strategies
Tellus coordinating closely with MAPC
- Provide modeling assistance
- Serve on MetroFuture Steering Committee,
Technical Advisory Group & Inter-Issue Task Force
- MAPC participates in our project advisory group
-------
Systems Overview
Boston Scenarios Project
Stakeholders
Advisory Committee, MetroFuture,
Working Groups, Newsletter, Website
Stakeholders
Resident surveys, presentations, forums, steering committee
IITF, Scenario 4 working group
Stakeholder Consultation
Established and met with 25-person Advisory
Committee
Developed project website and e-discussion
group: cenarios.org
Build on input to MetroFuture process
- Analyzed 3,000 visioning statements for elements of
sustainability
- Participated on Steering Committee and others, &
public forums
Data Collection, Review & Synthesis
• Gather recent and current data (iterative)
- demographics
- economic activity
- industry
- transportation
- air quality
- energy
- employment and income
- income
- land use
- water quantity and quality
- solid waste
- food and agriculture
Rely on existing sources (MAPC, Indicators Project, state)
Refine as appropriate as better data becomes available
POL6STRR
A Tool FOR SussuNAbiltw SrudiES
Decision support system for sustainability
studies, local to global
Developed by Tellus in early 1990s
Not a rigid model, but an open framework to
build integrated scenarios plus a database
Allows user to identify driving forces, address
critical uncertainties and explore alternative
futures
^^^ffl INSTITUTE
-------
Polestar Application
Scenarios for Boston Region
Iterative process with collaborators and stakeholders:
Three scenarios being developed:
- Business-As-Usual (BAU): little change in
production and consumption patterns; equity not
addressed
- Policy Reform: technological and policy
measures emphasized to moderate ecological
destruction and social inequality
- Deep Change: changes in values lead to changes
in lifestyles and institutions (along with technology
innovations) to achieve sustainability with global
responsibility
Deep Change Endorsed
Deep Change scenario strongly endorsed
by Advisory Group, sectoral working
groups, and project participants
Consistent with the objective of
sustainability with global responsibility
Significant challenges acknowledged
Meeting CO2 emissions target
requires Deep Change
» 50 -
S 40 -
| 30 -
1 20-
10 -
0
2005
2020
2030
2050
Business as Usual Policy Reform --*- Deep Change |
Sources of emissions reductions in
Deep Change
• E
•
CO2 reductions in Deep Change
GDP: Reduction in workweek -> lower overall GDP by 25%
Households: Smaller houses, more multi-family, reduced
rate of appliance growth, increased efficiency & renewables
Passenger transport: More compact communities -> less
driving & air travel, mode shifts, efficiency and renewables
Freight: Reduced demand for goods, increased efficiency
and renewables
Services: Reduced consumption -> reduced commercial
floor space, increased efficiency and renewables
Industry: Reduced output (less demand for "stuff"),
increased efficiency, renewables
Electric generation (impacts all of the above): Reduced
consumption, increased efficiency, renewables
-------
Major Shift in
Travel Mode Shares across the Region
2050 (Deep Change)
Deep Change Commitment to
Preserving Open Space
1000
Thousands of 80°
Acres of 600
Open Space 40Q
200
0
2000 2020 2030 2050
Engagement Opportunities
Metro Future
Brief new administration (Gov. Patrick)
Educational curriculum: BC, UEI, BU
MA State Sustainability Program
MPO Regional Transportation Plan
MA Climate Action Plan & RGGI
Boston Indicators Project
MA Green Budget
Other NGO initiatives
.
Impact on Partners
MetroFuture adopted sustainability as overall
criterion for scenario evaluation
Introduced new, more visionary scenario
("Imagine") to MetroFuture process
Though not selected, it altered the dialogue
about desirable and possible futures
Key elements added to preferred scenario (e.g.
energy & CO2, more integrated approach)
Contributions to Environmental
Decision Making for Sustainability
Infusion of science based systems approach, integrating
sustainability and local & global concerns into a regional
planning effort and stakeholder process
Raised awareness among policymakers & citizens of the
need to examine the role of values and lifestyle in social,
environmental and economic elements of sustainability
Promote integration of existing planning efforts in the
region to incorporate long-term goals for sustainability
and global responsibility
Lessons Learned
Need technology plus values/lifestyle changes for
sustainability
Long-range scenarios with normative visions have
potential for significant impact
Difficult to involve all relevant parties in stakeholder
engagement process
Data collection at metro regional level is challenging
Relationships among sectors are complex to model
Importance of local partners, knowledge and data
•
-------
EPA's CMS Support
• Improved tool (PoleStar) for long-range
sustainability scenario development
• Enhanced our standing with:
-MAPC
-EPA
- Boston Scenarios Project advisory committee
• Strengthened Tellus links with sustainability
leaders in region (e.g., academics, local and
state agencies, MA Smart Growth Alliance)
^AlNS-mirn, ^
Future Work
PoleStar now being used to update global
scenarios (11 regions)
Assist other regions in creating long-term
scenarios of alternative futures
Disseminate scenario approach and Deep
Change in educational materials
Ongoing involvement in Boston region
policy efforts (transportation, energy, etc.)
.
Response to Feedback
Advisory Committee input helped shape
alternative scenarios, espec. Deep Change
Accepted invitation to get deeply involved in
Metro Future
Committee and sector working groups
identified and prioritized policy engagement
opportunities (education, transportation)
-------
Portland's Stormwater Marketplace
Using Market Forces for Sustainable Stormwater Management
Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustain ability
Progress Workshop
Washington, DC - November 8-9, 2007
Ecotopia
Portland and the Left Coast
Watershed Focus
Five diverse urban ecosystems
Multiple Stormwater Management Systems
Systems based on Age and Geography
861 miles of combined sewers (pink)
932 miles of separated sanitary
sewers (red)
568 miles of separated storm
sewers, storm channels, ditches
and culverts (green)
9200 sumps (blue)
Financial Reliance on Utility Rates
Jtility investments and rates driven by City response to environmental regulations
(16 -
(14 -
(10 -
(8 -
(2 -
M.,,h,,S»™
»,,,Ch,,a,,R,,P.«,n
House
old
1973 - Federal Endangered Species Act
1974 - Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
1976 -Failed effort to control flood ing on Johnson Creek
1988 - City begins (23 million upgrade of East Portland sumps
1991 -Water qualii> ^re.vij-.s :••.&! '.t-ifanno Creek
1998 -Water guality regulations set fortheColumb a Slough
1998 - Steelhead Trout listed as an engangered species
2000 - Portland Harbor is listed as a Superfund site
2001 - Oregon DEO sets rul(s ;•.„ v.t'.-s,- w.u n-.iSKt on wells
fi
M^rT
i
s
'
/
'
/
^
^
'
:
/
;
i
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
S3L
City of Portland, Oregon - Stormwater Marketplace Feasibility Study (SX3-ES220701-0)
EPA CMS Progress Workshop - Washington, DC - November 8-9, 2007
Shifting Financial Burdens
Street system drainage costs shifted to Stormwater ratepayers
$50,000 ,000
$
Stormwater Charges and Gas Ta
Revenues
Stormwater Charges
^— ^Gas Tax Revenues ^^P
^^^^
_^^L. ^'
- ***~~~^
-------
CSO Control Strategies
Planned Strategies to maintain CSO controls from 2011 through 2040
CSO Demand Versus System
Capacity
Challenge beyond 2011...
Increased density with add 2.2 billion gallons of runoff by 2040
Grant Proposal
Phased Approach to Analysis and Program Development
Task 1
Identify Public System Capacity,
Requirements and Costs
Feasibility Analysis
Evaluating Alternative Futures
Regulations
Current Approaches Delivery Future Approaches Private
(2006) Mechanisms ' (2011-2040)
Market Cases
Engaging Private Investments- Expanding Ecosystem Benefits
Alternative 1
• Optimize Cost and Volume Control
• Increase Private Investments
Alternative Ib
• Optimize Cost and Volume Control
• Increase Private Investments
• Increase Street System Investments
Alternative 2
• Optimize Water Quality Controls
Alternative 3
• Optimize Ecosystem Services
Private Investment - Regulatory
Private Investment - Voluntary
Public Investment - Public Property
Private Investment - Regulatory
Private Investment - Voluntary
Water Quality Control
Ecosystem Services
E
w
valuation Tool
eighing Costs and Benefits
H=FT
. «
: I
^
i
I ^p
=
4-
V
Activity Types
Public Investment - Public Property
Public Investment - Private Property
Private Investment - Regulatory
Private Investment - Voluntary
BMP Characteristics
Cost
Capital, Design and O&M
Unit Cost per 1000 Gallons of Volume Control
Volume Control
Gallons of Volume Control per Acre per Year
Water Quality Control - BMP Effectiveness
Flow
Sediment (TSS)
Zinc
Pathogens
Phosphorous
Ecosystem Services - BMP Effectiveness
Air Purification
Carbon Sequestration
Flood Storage
Terrestrial Habitat
Aquatic Habitat
1 Urban Heat Island Effect
Aesthetics/Quality of Life
I J^ jf City of Portland, Oregon - Stormwater Marketplace Feasibility Study (SX3-B3220701-0)
I AJ «w FPA CNS Prog-ess Workshop - Washington, DC - November 8-9, 2007
-------
Evaluation Tool
BMP Characteristics
BMPs
Ecotoof
Dtywell
Drywell
sump w/ Eed. Manhde
Flow-Through Planter - Roof Areas
Infiltration Planter
Roof^ea
Sfreets
Curb Extension
Pipe Separation
Porous Pavement
New Consfrucbon
Retrofits
Sand Filter
Downspout Disconnection
school/Church
SFKesiiince
Tree Planting
Other Bit's
Flow Restrict.
Scakaos Trerch
Costs
Capital
285,003
21,552
90,003
100,003
85,003
100,003
70,144
524,733
218,003
338,003
56,103
18,003
23,103
43,503
15,003
110,003
Design
85,803
2,155
27,003
30,003
25,503
30,003
21,003
157,425
65,403
92,403
16,833
3,003
2,903
2,175
4,503
33,003
O&M
935
25
133
2,287
2,003
2,287
2,287
833
4,003
4,003
1,103
25
25
33
133
533
LJfeSpan
(years)
33
25
33
33
30
30
30
103
20
20
33
33
33
33
10
15
Annual Stormwater Volume
% Removed
40%
100%
100%
25%
33%
33%
33%
50%
33%
33%
0%
40%
40%
10%
0%
100%
% Overflow
60%
0%
0%
75%
50%
50%
50%
33%
33%
50%
103%
60%
60%
93%
103%
0%
|j^ } City of Portland, Oregon - Stormwater Marketplace Feasibility Study (SX3-ES220701-0)
Evaluation Tool
BMP Characteristics
BMPs
Ecoroof
Drywell
Drywell
Sump w/ Sed. Manhde
Flow- Through Planter -Roof Areas
Infiltration Planter
Roof Area
Street
Curb Extension
Pipe Separation
Porous Pavement
New Construction
Retrofits
Sand Filter
Downspout Disconnection
Sthod/Chjch
SFResiferce
Tree Planting
Other BMPs
Flow Restricts
Soakage Trench
Tier 2 Effectiveness
Flow
60%
103%
103%
85%
33%
33%
95%
103%
77%
77%
25%
40%
40%
10%
10%
100%
aedment
40%
0%
65%
85%
33%
33%
85%
0%
64%
64%
42%
40%
40%
42%
0%
0%
Zinc
28%
0%
2%
90%
50%
50%
90%
0%
35%
35%
95%
40%
40%
35%
0%
0%
Pathogens
40%
0%
0%
14%
33%
33%
10%
0%
87%
87%
93%
40%
40%
0%
0%
0%
Phosphorus
40%
0%
2%
50%
50%
50%
70%
0%
25%
25%
63%
40%
40%
25%
0%
0%
[3^ ^ City of Portland, Oregon - Stormwater Marketplace Feasibility Study (SX3-B3220701-0)
1 2J ^» EPA CNS Prog-ess Workshop-Washington,DC-November 8-9,2007
Evaluation Tool
Identifying Market Investments based on Objectives, Price, Effectiveness and Con
Total - Marketplace
Market
Optimi;
Ecosystem
Evaluation Tool
Trading Direct Public Investments for Marketplace Trading
Market 1
Cost
Effectivene'
Market Ib
Green
Streets
Market 3
Ecosystem
Services
Evaluation Tool
Comparing Marketplace Results to Portland's Base Case for Stormwater Management
Stormwater Management Costs
Total Cost (^millions)
Unit Cost per 1000 Gallons Managed
Market Credit Frioe per 1000 Sailors Managed
Managed Stormwater Volume per Year (MG)
Pubic -Public
Pubic - Private
Private - Regulatory
Private - Alternative to SWIM
Private - Voluntary
Total Managed Volume (million gallons)
Base
Case
$263.90
$19.55
$19.55
3,313
3,524
1,665
13,502
Variance from FJase Case
Effectiveness
4B2
1,013
1,593
351
Market Ib
Streets
137
1,013
1,939
352
Duality
$32. 16
$0.16
$5.72
506
1,463
2,317
1,520
Market 3
Services
$35.29
$3.13
505
734
1,132
Evaluation Tool
Relative Gains and Losses - Variance of Market Alternatives to the Base Case
Volume Central
Market 1 Market Ib Market 2 Market 3
Cost Green Water Ecosystem
Effectiveness Streets Quality Services
-------
Evaluation Tool
Relative Gains and Losses -Variance of Market Alternatives to the Base Cast
Tta-2- water QuatttyanM,
Flow
sediment
QssdvedZinc
Patf-ogers
Phosphorous
Vers-Ecosystensenices
Air Punflcation
Carbon Sequestration
Flocd Sto-age
Terrestrial Habitat
Aqjatic Habtat
U-ban Heat Island
Aesthetcs/QjalityofLife
Composite Siore
Variance from Base Case
Market 1
Cost
Effectiveness
2.9%
-1B.6%
-23.4%
37.1%
-16.3%
0.0%
-23.0%
-4.3%
-12.6%
0.0%
152.5%
152.5%
26.5%
Market Ib
Green Streets
2.9%
-IB.6%
-23.4%
37.1%
-16.6%
0.0%
23.0%
-4 %
-12 %
0 %
152 %
152 %
25 %
Market 2
Water
Quality
1.3%
4.5%
-7.6%
107.3%
7.1%
0.0%
-17.3%
-17.2%
-12.6%
0.0%
122.3%
122.3%
17.3%
Market 3
Ecosystem
-3.9%
0.3%
2.3%
101.5%
-1.3%
0.0%
1.2%
6.7%
23.6%
0.0%
593. 1%
593. 1%
65.3%
Phase I - Lessons Learned
• There appears to be an adequate supply (sellers) for a stormwater marketplace
• There may be sufficient relative price differences to consider credit trades and auctions
at the BMP level for selected comparisons, and across a package or "portfolio" of BMPs
• Refined inputs and sensitivity analyses are needed to be sure
• There are substantial opportunities to develop and deploy market mechanisms to
animate demand (buyers), including heightened regulations and the effective use of
City investments
• The costs of implementing a credit trading system may exceed the potential benefits
unless the City can find partners to share the legal, administrative and technical burden
Phase I - Lessons Learned
• Evaluation and decision-making tools hold out great promise as aids to planning,
program development, and decision-making
• More work is required...
- Refine BMP cost and effectiveness information
- Develop values for ecosystem service effectiveness
- Integrate the "Tool" with systems modeling and asset management efforts
- Expand the "Tool" to allow for site-specific and watershed-specific analysis
- Use the "Tool" to make effective marketing and investment decisions
Phase I - Lessons Learned
We have a better idea about where we've been, where we are now,
where we might want to go, and how to get there
Private A
Money / \
Portland's Stormwater Marketplace
Current Examples of Market-Oriented Initiatives
Development Density Bonuses
Discounted Utility Charges
Downspout Disconnection Program
Watershed Stewardship Grants
Development Density Bonuses
• Targets new developments in the Central City
• Developers receive a square foot of floor area
bonus for each square foot of roof garden
• The ecoroof bonus ranges from 1:1 to 3:1
depending on the extent of the roof coverage
• Developers must record covenants to retain
and maintain the green roofs... permanently
• The bonus has produced an estimated $225
million in additional private development at 11
participating sites
• The program has spurred ecoroof
developments outside of the target area...
Portland has more than 120 ecoroofs in place
and more are on the way
-------
Downspout Disconnection Program
• Targets to homes and small businesses in
combined sewer areas on the east side of the
Willamette River
• Great opportunity for public education about
stormwater and CSOs
• Property owners and community volunteers
do the work after the City surveys each site
and approves each disconnection
• Property owners receive $53 per
disconnected downspout... Community groups
earn $13 per disconnected downspout
• Since 1994, the program has reached 56,000
properties, 1.2 billion gallons of stormwater
per year from the combined sewer system
\
Discounted Utility Charges
• Itemizes the stormwater bill into on-site and off-
site stormwater management services
• Offers up to 100% discount of the on-site
portion ... 35% of the total stormwater bill
• First discount comes with a retroactive credit
worth as much as 12 months of the stormwater
discount
• Discounts are calculated based on the extent and
effectiveness of private facilities to control flow
rate, pollution and disposal
• Since October 2006, the City has processed more
than 33,000 registrations
• Full participation may reach 110,000 of the
176,000 stormwater ratepayers
Watershed Stewardship Grants r^7Tn^~
• Grants up to $5,000 to community groups
• Focused on community-initiated projects to
improve watershed health
• Fosters community partnerships and provides
technical assistance, financial support and training
to volunteers
• Projects have included ecoroofs, parking lot swales,
habitat restoration and downspout disconnections
• Between 1995 and 2005, the program awarded 108
grants, engaging more than 27,000 citizens who
donated nearly 140,000 volunteer hours
• Nearly $450,000 in City grants have attracted more
than $1.9 in matching funds
Portland Responds to Baseline Questions
Contribution to Sustainability
Surprising Results
Update on Collaborators
How has CNS Helped?
Desired Feedback
Contribution to Sustainability
Observations from 2006...
• Actors are able to quantify benefits derived from site-level investments
• Actions are more accountable since prices are linked directly to costs
• Improved accounting links individual actions to community and public goods
• Incentives create a "bias for action" independent of regulation
• Dispersed, small-scale facilities increase the resiliency of the overall system
Observations from 2007...
• Markets provide the "place" where the social, economic and ecological
principles of Sustainability are integrated and leveraged
• Markets increase the likelihood of sustainable investments by providing easy
access to research, technical assistance, financing, incentives, supply chains
and maintenance services
• Markets improve the Sustainability of public investments and utility finances by
shifting responsibility and costs to private actors and personal behavior
Surprising Results
Observations from 2006...
• Actors are able to quantify benefits derived from site-level investments
• Actions are more accountable since prices are linked directly to costs
• Improved accounting links individual actions to community and public goods
• Incentives create a "bias for action" independent of regulation
• Dispersed, small-scale facilities increase the resiliency of the overall system
Observations from 2007...
• Market forces are ever-present, awaiting animation and direction
• Public understanding of Sustainability is increasing, approaching a tipping point
• Public understanding of the role of markets needs to catch-up
• Social networks and marketing strategies can play a critical role
• Sophisticated and expensive trading systems might need to follow more
accessible and grass roots marketplace structures and strategies
• Institutional inertia is the most significant obstacle to any paradigm shift
-------
Update on Collaborators
Observations from 2006...
• Inquiries are focused obstacles- permitting, regulation and transaction costs
• Coordination with regional marketplace initiative is essential
• Regulators (state and federal) are very interested
• Collaboration will increase in future phases
Observations from 2007...
• The project is moving from internal deliberations to a community conversation
• Project stakeholders and partners are interested and supportive
• Uncertainty remains when it comes to regulators and organized special interests
• The next phase will engage social networks to determine the ways and means of
animating and directing market forces
• New initiatives will target the green economy, sustainability professionals and the
supply chain of goods and services to serve individuals and communities
Desired Feedback
Observations from 2006...
• Help document and check our assumptions and reduce our level of uncertainty
• Suggest ways to increase regulatory acceptance and flexibility
• Suggest ways to simplify a complicated subject and increase its accessibility to
the public
• Help us see identify threats and risks, as well as opportunities facing our project
Observations from 2007...
• Help organize collaborative research and development programs to advance the
following practical prerequisites of sustainable stormwater markets:
- Methods and models for monitoring the effectiveness of sustainable
stormwater facilities
- subjective and objective values for ecosystem services
- configurable software to operate credit trading registries
- integration of local, regional, national and international marketplaces for
ecosystem credit trading
How CNS Has Helped?
Observations from 2006...
• Provided the necessary funding to get the work started
• Increased visibility, interest and knowledge of ecosystem services
• Provided the initiative for internal collaboration within Environmental Services
• Provided networking opportunities around the US and in DC
Observations from 2007...
• Created the occasion for a coming together of federal and state stakeholders
from the Pacific Northwest
• Brought Dr. Garrett Louis into the project., and his thoughtful inquiry into our
methods of engaging stakeholders and decision-makers
• Increased our credibility in conversations with Congressional committees
Principal Investigators
City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services
• Dan Vizzini - 503.823.4038 - danv@bes.ci.portland.or.us
• Dave Kliewer - 503.823.7096 - davek@bes.ci.portland.or.us
• Gordon Feighner - 503.823.7160 - aordon.feiahner@ci.portland.or.u
David Evans and Associates
• Tom Puttman - 503.223.6663 - tip@deainc.com
CH2M-HMI
• Lisa Bacon - 703.338.8102 - Iisa.bacon@ch2m.com
• Ken Carlson - 503.235.5000 - ken.carlson@ch2m.com
-------
1/30/2008
Ecological Sustainability in Rapidly Urbanizing
Watersheds: Evaluating Strategies Designed to
Mitigate Impacts on Stream Ecosystems
| Keith Van Ness
Montgomery County DEP
Laura Craig 0
University of Maryland I
Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability
Progress Review Workshop
November 8-9, 2007 Washington DC
Questions:
When compared
to pre-2K SWM
strategies, are
post-2 K
strategies better
at mitigating the
effects of
urbanization on
stream
ecosystems?
PeakQ
Baseflow 0
RainfalL-Runoff
Environmental
Systems
Analysis
How does
watershed
development
affect receiving
streams?
Channel morphology
Particle size distribution
Study System:
1 pre-2K control watershed
1 forested watershed
3 post-2K watersheds
Valuable Tools:
5 USGS stream gages
2 rain gages
LiDAR imagery
Meeting the needs of environmental
Documenting ecosystem response/recovery to long term and
significant landscape changes
Documenting effectiveness of sediment and erosion control
and SWM best management practices
Providing feedback to decision-makers regarding
development and SWM design
Devising more focused research questions based on the
needs of managers and decision-makers
"Lessons Learned"
Questions and methods must be
adaptable when studying large-scale
Mtreatments that you cannot control
Conversion of sediment control to SWM has been slower than expected
• Building moratorium imposed on study area
• Conversion can only occurwhen 100% of drainage area is controlled
slowed over the course of the study
Slow down of housing market
Treatment" effects may be masked by larger local effects
Influence of local geology and physiography
-------
1/30/2008
Sediment and erosion control devices
are, at best, 86% efficient
Development results in changes to in-stream habitat
SPA Sediment Sliwtiire TSS Peiconl Dm*me
Where Foi-elmy TSS is Greater or Equal lo 1U« ms. I
1005%
00%
-1000%
-3000%
-4000%
-5000%
-600 0%
-7000%
8000%
.
- Ntediai = 0.8628
D25%-75%
= (054,0.9643)
iNon-Oufte/Range
= (-004,1)
° Gutters
Overal!% TSS Decrease
Construction phase profoundly changes
benthic macro in vertebrate community
composition
Benthic Macroinvertebrate IBI Scores
Changes in Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Community Composition
(Control Sites)
1996-2000
f\mphinemura= 33% Shredder
Chironomidae= 21% Collector
N= 24, Total # of Stations = 7
2003 2006
Control Sites
Impacted Sites
Changes in Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Community Composition
(Impacted Sites)
In-stream NO3 uptake cannot be detected in
Clarksburg study watersheds
Measured NO3 uptake at each site:
Summer and Fall 2005
Spring, Summer, and Fall 2006
I Summer 2007
2003 2006
000
Dominant Taxa
Orthocladiinae = 24% Collector
Chironimini= 13% Collector
N 31, Total # of Stations = 9
Distance Downstream
Nutrient concentrations do not change with distance downstream!
-------
1/30/2008
Are streams N saturated?
Are other nutrients limiting?
Are streams N saturated?
Are other nutrients limiting?
DIN:SRP is a strong predictor of N saturation (Earl et al. 2006)
Study streams appear N saturated
C and P may be limiting uptake by benthos
Ways the CNS Funding &
Program have Helped Us
Creation/recognition of the Clarksburg Integrated Ecological Study
Partnership has increased the number contacts from potential
collaborators
Helped leverage funding and in-kind services
Provided a level of legitimacy to the county s efforts to understand
effects of land use change to receiving streams and biota
Networking has provided increased access to information, people,
and equipment
Research funded by CNS has led to new and interesting research
questions regarding the effects of land use on stream ecosystems.
Update on Collaborators
and Partners
S. Taylor Jarnagin, EPA-EPIC
Mapping landscape change and channel morphology using LiDAR
Dianna Hogan, USGS-Reston
Direct measurement of SWM BMP effectiveness
John W. Jones, USGS-Reston
Land use change and climate
Yusuf M. Mohamoud, EPA-NERL
Modeling urban development with HSPF
Kaye Brubaker, Vince Gardina, University of Maryland
Accuracy of LiDAR in different canopy densities
Gary Fisher, WRD, USGS
Collaborator on 5 USGS stream gages
M NCPPC Park Managers and Ecologists
Response to feedback from partners, CNS
grantees, and others
Expanded partnerships with collaborators and the generation of
additional data related to our original questions.
• Multi-year LiDAR coverage capti
changes (Jarnagin)
Accuracy assessment of LiDAR (Jarnagin
Creation of ARCMAP uoveiages (Hogan)
Creation of BMP database (Hogan)
:ures landscape and stream
Discussions with other grantees at last year s meeting provided
insight regarding data and inspired follow up experiments
Motivated the upgrade of the USGS gauge at our urban site to
"real-time" allowing for public access
-------
1/30/2008
The Future of "Ecological Sustainability in
Rapidly Urbanizinq Watersheds"
Continued monitoring to gain a long-term understanding of the
effects of land use change and SWM on geomorphological and
ecological metrics as funding allows
Continued collaborative efforts
Pursue interesting "spin-off" questions
Publication of results (DEP releases and peer-reviewed journals)
-------
1SEI
STOCKHOLM
ENVIRONMENT
INSTITUTE
Integrating Water Supply
And Ecological Flow
Requirements
EPA Grant# X3-83238601-0
Collaborative Science and Technology
Network for Sustainability Workshop
Washington, DC
November 8-9, 2007
Experiment Objectives
Examine trade-offs between human and ecological
demands for water for a wide range of reservoir-
release policies and reservoir sizes
Quantify effects of demand management on this
tradeoff
Apply results to real-world case studies
Communicate results through publication
-------
Release Policies Simulated
• No Release Required
• Minimum flows
• Seasonal minimum flows
• Seasonal minimum flows with high pulses
• Adaptive seasonal minimum flows
• based on reservoir level
• Fraction of inflow
• Fraction on inflow with low flow protection
3 n Tl T ftTOCMIQLII
1 i H I ES'V[R°NME:
J U LJ L IV5717U71
Reservoir Size
10000
1000
10
Flow Variability Below Reservoirs
Flow Policy: Minimum flow
Natural Flow 10% 50% 100% 200%
Reservoir Size-% mean annual flow
3 P T"l T STOCKHOL
IN r I E"™X!
-------
Yield and Impacts
Drought Management
I 0.6
Reduce Total Demand
Adaptive seasonal 4
Minimum, /
012345
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Impact Score
Release rules can reduce reservoir yields
by 24-30%
% Change from No Release
10% 50% 100% 200%
Reservoir size -% mean annual flow
p T1 T
X H I
ULjL
STOCKHOLU
ENVIRONMENT
INSTITUTE
Drought management can allow for
comparable yields to no releases
% Change from No Release - Drought mgmt
10% 50% 100% 200%
Reservoir size - % mean annual flow
p T~1 T
X H I
L/JL/ 1
STOCKHOLM
ENVIRONMENT
IXSTTJITE
Environmental sustainability of water supplies can be
improved through the use of integrated reservoir release
policies and drought policies
Reduced yields as a result of reservoir release policies can be
largely offset by drought management measures:
• Release rules can reduce reservoir yields by 24-30%
• Drought management can allow for yields comparable to
no-release yields and pre-reservoirflow conditions
Increased supplies from drought management can be used to
support environmental flows
Release policies that are effective for small reservoirs may not
be effective for large reservoirs
3 p T~I T srockHOLK
1 i H IENvEAchNHE!
J U L_S 1 IKSTlTUTt
Project Collaboration
• Case study in support of
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection's
effort to develop a
streamf low-protection
regulation
• Tool will be used to: a) evaluate
draft reservoir release and direct
withdrawals policies (standards),
and b) be compared to a similar but
less robust model being developed
WEAR: Water
Evaluation and
Planning System
:;iWJl:
JSEI
STOCKHOLM
ENVIRONMENT
INSTITUTE
-------
Ways in which CNS funding has helped
• CNS funding has enabled our research team to
communicate results through publication and at
conferences and workshops around the world:
• American Society of Civil Engineers, World Environmental and
Water Resources Congress (Anchorage, AK)
• National Center for Environmental Research Subcommittee on
Water Availability and Quality (Arlington, VA)
• International RiverSympos/um and Environmental Flows
Conference (Brisbane, Australia)
• EPA Region I Science Day (Boston, MA)
• Presentation was direct result of being posted on the website
• American Water Resources Association, Baltimore, MD
Article in Arr
2007)
jter Works Association journal (October,
3PFT"0"""
1 i r I [*™c"il
JLfl^/i. I\'5TITIT
Future Work
Research Team
Apply results to case studies
Continue evaluation of tradeoffs between reservoir-
release policies, reservoir yield and drought
management
Formulate optimization by determining a set of
streamflow statistics most representative of change
in the natural-flow regime due to reservoir operation
Develop decision-support tool to optimize reservoir
operations that maximize both human and ecological
water needs
The Nature Conservancy: Mark P. Smith and
Colin A. Apse
Stockholm Environment Institute: Brian
Joyce and Jack Sieber
Tufts University: Richard M. Vogel, Stacey A.
Archfield, and Yongxuan Gao
1SEI
STOCKHOLM
EWIIOIOINT
IKSTI7UTE
^^^^^^^^^^^^
p T-l T STOCKHOLM
\ H I MVIIOMMIX
U Lj L IKSTITUTI
Meeting the needs of environmental-decision
making forsustainability: Project goals
• Quantify trade-offs between competing water
management objectives;
• Integrate a more precise definition of ecosystem flow
needs into water supply management;
• Provide a tool for optimizing timing and use of
drought management and water conservation
techniques;
• Promote consensus-based decision-making to
management of water resources.
3 p T~I T srocmioLK
1 i H IENvEAchNHE!
J U L_S 1 IKSTlTUTt
Changes in High Flow Events
Change in Days Above Q2 and Q10
Percent
§
7.3 days > Q2
a
T T
37.1 days>Q10
10% 50% 100% 200% 10% 50% 100% 200%
Reservoir size
Percent of mean annual flow
-------
Reservoir Yields
Policv
No Release
Minimum
Adaptive seasonal
Fraction
Seasonal
Fraction w/min
Seasonal w/pulse
Yield Fraction i
0.76 26.5
0.65 22.4
0.62 21.7
0.53 18.7
0.52 17.7
0.51 17.0
0.49 16.4
•
•o
>-
C&&
Yield and Impacts
Yield and Impacts
Reduce Total Demand * Demands
No Release
Adaptive seasonal
Minimum
*
Seasona w/pulse * Frarti^ wbafe ^— FradTSn
_______ •— r— •
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Impact Score
flQFT=-
— - ^. LJ1_/1 ISSTITUTI
-------
Yield and Impacts
Effects of Drought Management
Reduce Total Demand * Demands
012345
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Impact Score
p TI T
X H I
U LJ 1
-I", (,: l| M
ENVIRONMENT
IJf5T(7U7E
-------
1/30/2008
Conservancy*3 \f\ N H
STOCKHOLM
ENVIRONMENT ^
INSTITUTE
Integrating Water Supply And
Ecological Flow Requirements
EPA Grant # X3-83238601-0
Collaborative Science and Technology
Network for Sustainability Workshop
Washington, DC
November 8-9, 2007
Conservancy-~s [71 X H I
STOCKHOLM
ENVIRONMENT >
INSTITUTE
Collaborative Research:
Richard Vogel - Tufts University
Stacey Archfield - Tufts University
Mark Smith - The Nature Conservancy
Colin Apse - The Nature Conservancy
Jack Sieber - The Stockholm Environment Institute
Brian Jovce - The Stockholm Environment Institute
Outline of Talk
5 Tufts University •
-Historical Perspective on the Problem
of Ecological Flow Protection
-Introduction to the Ecodeficit
-Optimal Balance of Water For
Humans and Ecosystems
-Relationships Between Reservoir
Storage, Yield and Instream Flow
Low Flow Conditions in Water
Rich Massachusetts
: Tufts University =
Low Flows In Rivers Due to Human and
Natural Causes Lead to Water Supply
Deficits
Ecosystem Depends Upon
Natural Variability
= Tufts University:
Ian Feb Mar Apr MJV lim lul Aue Seu Oct Nov Dei
-------
1/30/2008
There are now over 75,000 dams
Occurring on average every 70km
On over 5.2 million km of river miles
1950
Tufts University:
1800
History of increasing total reservoir storage
for the continental U.S.
(from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1996)
• Tufts University ™
10BO
1900 1910 1320 1930 WO 19 JO 1360 WO '» 1S9C 3003
Dams 'flatten' the downstream
flow regime
: Tufts University =
Shading denotes degree of homogenization
in flow regimes due to dams
(from Poff el al. 2007. PNASI
Its Not So Simple!
The Quabbin Reservoir
Tailwater Region, Just
Below the Spillway
Attracts Fly Fisherman
from All over the Region!
Dams Provide Many Benefits
Including:
Water Supply
Hydropower
Irrigation
Recreation
Cooling Water
And..
= Tufts University:
-------
Dams Also Provide Flood Protection
The Setting and Problem
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^—^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^— Tufts University:
The need to balance human and ecological flows
results from our historical lack of attention given to
ecological flows (instream flow) in water resource
management
There are dozens of texts and tens of thousands of
articles on the management of reservoirs for human
needs
Until very recently, they only assign a minimum
flow requirement for instream flows
I'mteil Sulo. R^hxvjikr Priigr.im
Suites Working on Instream Flow Policy
The Setting and Problem
: Tufts University =
There is a sizable literature addressing each of the
following problems:
*• Instream Flow Needs
*• Optimal Reservoir Management (for human uses)
*• Water Resource Policy and Negotiations
However, there is very little literature integrating these
three areas.
\ The Setting and Problem
= Tufts University:
' What causes ecological flow stress?
- Increased human withdrawals (ground and surface)
-Natural climatic variability
- Climatic change
- Land use changes (impact water quality and flow
regimes)
The Setting and Problem
^^ Tufts University:
How do we reduce ecological flow stresses?
*• Decrease human withdrawals (demand
management, reuse, leak detection,...)
*• Stormwater recharge/management
*• Land-use management
*• Groundwater banking
^Improve environmental releases
(topic of this talk)
-------
1/30/2008
A Watershed Systems Optimization Model Could be Used
From Zoltay, Vogel and Kirs hen (2007)
Surf ace Water Dischar
idwater Recharge/Indirect Reuse
Watershed
Systems
Management
Table 6. Manageme
Management Options
Consumer'sRate Change
Repair
WWTP Infrastructure
Repair
Stormwater BMPs
LandConservation
Nonpotable Distribution
Additional Surface Water
Storage
Additional Capacity
Surface Water Pumping
Drinking Water Treatment
Waste water Treatment
Aquifer Storage &
ntRecomir
Units
%
Infiltration
# units
Ha
%of
MG
MOD
MOD
MOD
MOD
MOD
endations with Increasing
Allocation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
Approach:
Options
Mar
Optimal Near Ter
Allocation Optimiza
agement Opt
on with WW
Export
NA 10% (Max) 50% (Max
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
o
0
5.4
0
0
0
ons. 3
Long Term
without WW
Export
50% (Max)
100%
0
0
0
o
5.4
0
0
1.6
o
Watershed Systems Approach
EH&JB? Ipswich River Example,
^j&jijp From Zoltay, Vogel and Kirshen
Table 8. Management Recommendations with Increasing Instream Flow
(2007)
Tufts Unh
lequirement
Management Options Units % ISF '/, ISF Full ISF
Consumer's Rate Change
DWTP Infrastructure Repair
WWTP Infrastructure Rep air
Stormwater BMPs
Land Conservation
Nonpotable Distribution System
Additional Surface Water Storage
Additional Capacity:
Surface Water Pumpjng
Groundwater Pumping
Drinking Water Treatment
Wastewater Treatment
Aquifer Storage & Recovery
Water Reuse Facility
%
% of Leaks
% of Infiltration
# units
ha
% of Consumers
MG
MOD
MOD
MOD
MOD
MOD
MOD
50%
100%
100%
0
0
0
0
5.4
0
0
1.6
0
0
50%
100%
100%
0
0
0
0
5.4
0
0
1.6
0
0
50%
100%
100%
120
0
0
0
5.0
0
0
1.6
18
0
Net Benefit $3,084,187 $3,066,407 ($9530579)
ISF=InstreamFlow; the fraction of instream flow met in scenario
Historical Perspectives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tufts University:
1 When (he systems • Today's quest/on is:
were designed the
guests: . How much water do
• How much water can we need to |eave in the
we reliably withdraw rjver?
from the river?
Flow Duration Curves (FDC's) are Useful
Tools for Ecological Flow Assessments
= Tufts University:
1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994
I i I i I i I i I i I . I i I i I i I i I,
• Flow Duration Curve
- Hydrograph
I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6
ftrant cf Time Ejjaled a &ceeded
Suwannee River, NearWilcox, FL
Annual FDC's and the Median
Annual FDC
= Tufts University:
•6
Exceedance Probability
-------
An Example of Use of FDC's for
documenting hydrologic change -
Aberjona River, MA
ra
_>.
'<5
Q
5 Tufts University i
ALL
Flows Increased
1940s-1950s
— 1960s-1970s
1980s-1990s
Exceedance Probability
Definition of an Ecodeficit
Streamflow
= Tufts University:
1980's
1990's
Ecodeficit is a volume
of water which is no longer
flowing in the stream
Exceedance Probability
Ecodeficit can be defined in terms of
streamflow or habitat
Streamflow
Or
Habitat
Suitability
Index
• Tufts University ™
1980's
1990's
Ecodeficit is a volume
of water which is no longer
flowing in the stream
Exceedance Probability
B^ljl Tne Ecodeficit - An Exam
: 'i i i '. '' "
Here e
river is
100.00 -
^ 10.00 -
| 1 .00
i
0.10
FDC
Ecodeficit
^
Unregulated
Regulated
~"^^«.
"^X
0 20 40 BO 80
EHceedence Probability
t
1C
P
ru
0
le
codeficit represents reduction in streamflow after
regulated by withdrawals from a reservoir.
An Ecodeficit and Ecosurplus
are Both Possible
1000
9 x 100 -
o CD
IE
ro Ja 10 -
= Tufts University:
Ecosurplus
Ecodeficit
Unregulated Seasonal FDC
-Regulated Seasonal FDC
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Exceedance Probability
Advantages of Ecodeficit/Ecosurplus
1
%r
Tufts University:
Can handle changes in seasonal, annual and decadal flow regimes
Summarizes entire flow regime from droughts to floods
Provides both graphical and quantitative summary
FDC's are already widely used in hydrology and habitat assessment
FDC's can be defined in terms of flow or habitat
Confidence intervals are easily obtained, leading to hypothesis tests
-------
1/30/2008
Competition for Water
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tufts University i
• When there's plenty of water, competition
among flow needs is irrelevant
• Some standards exist for instream flow
•*• Existing standards may not protect habitat
•*• Existing standards are rarely adaptive
. Usually there are NO standards for water
supply reliability
Tradeoff or Competition is a
Multi-objective Optimization Problem
5 Tufts University:
U—f
Tradeoff or Competition is a Multi-
objective Optimization Problem
Tradeoff or Competition is a Multi-
objective Optimization Problem
Pareto Frontier Based
on Optimal Policies
Tufts University =
Suboptimal
Policies
Water Supply Objective
Most uniform instream flow policies
lead to a zero-sum game
Note how difficult
it is for either party
to give up water?
Tufts University :
Existing
policies are
suboptimal
Water Supply Objective
,^» w^- Research goal is to improve our ability
to negotiate the Pareto Frontier
•5
u
'Ł
O
Knees in Pareto
Frontier, provide
incentive for
negotiations
^^— Tufts University:
Knees in Pareto
Frontier created by an
adaptive policy
Frontier
with
standard
policy
Water Supply Objective
-------
1/30/2008
The Traditional Water Supply Storage
- Reliability - Yield Relationship
^^^^^^^^^^^^^—^^^^^^^^^^^^^— Tufts University i
Storage - Reliability - Yield Relation
o
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Yield
Reliability = 0.9
Reliability = 0.95
Reliability = 0.98
Little Attention Is Given to Properties
of Instream Flow
Water Supply Reliability = 90%
0 0.5 1
Yield and Instream Flow
— Water Supply Yield
~~ Instream Flow
5 Tufts University:
Large Storage
favors water supply
Yield
Smaller Storage
favors instream flow
Exploring the Storage - Yield - Instream
Flow Relationship
Goal
Examine the impact of a range of release polices on the
reservoir storage capacity S, water supply yield Y, and
instream flow I.
Experimental Design:
• Daily streamflows for Green river in Massachusetts
(46 sq. mi)
• Storage ratios, S/u, range from 0-3, where
^ S=reservoir storage capacity
"r u,=mean annual inflow to reservoir
• Tufts University ™
Typical Storage Ratios Across the
United States
: Tufts University =
Storage Ratio is Number of Years
of Water In Storage (From Vogel et al. 1999)
Reservoir Release Policies Considered
^^ Tufts University:
No instream flow release
FOI - Release fraction of inflow to reservoir
Fixed Minimum Release
Flow components - releases to enhance floods
and low flows
FOI with demand (drought) management
Release Policies have an enormous
impact on storage - yield relation
= Tufts University:
--»-- Fraction of Inflow (FOI) = 0.4
• - - - No Instream Release
Fixed Minimum Release
—•— Fixed Min Release w/Augmentation
------ Flow Components
— FOI w/ Demand Reduction
1 1.5 2
Storage Fraction
2.5
-------
1/30/2008
Demand reduction has enormous
impact on storage yield curv
1 -i
0.9 -
c 0.8 -
° 0.7
it 0.5
-a 0.4 -
.5! 0.3 -
> 0.2-
0.1 -
0 -
'C
niversity s
— Fraction of Inflow (FOI) = 0.4
FOI =0.4 w/ Demand Reduction
jX"""1"^ Region between curves represents
If increased yield resulting from
ji demand management
/
) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Storage Fraction
Fixed minimum release is good for
small reservoirs but not large ones
Storage Ratio = 0.1
5Tufts University!
Storage Ratio = 1.0
\/
Inflows = Natural Flow Regime
Fixed minimum release is good for
small reservoirs, but not large ones
• Tufts University ™
Fixed Minimum Release
•••••• Flow Components
FOI=0.4 w/ Demand Reduction
1 1.5 2
Storage Fraction
Summary
: Tufts University =
Our Research Is:
Quantifying trade-offs between competing water
management objectives;
Integrating a more precise definition of ecosystem flow
needs into water supply management;
Providing a tool for optimization of the timing and use of
drought management, water conservation and other
reservoir release strategies;
Promoting a consensus-based decision-making approach
to management of water resources.
8
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability
Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Four Points by Sheraton
1201 K Street, NW
Washington, DC
November 8-9, 2007
Executive Summary
NOVEMBER 8, 2007
Welcome - EPA's Sustainability Research Strategy
Alan Hecht, Director for Sustainable Development, EPA, Office of Research and Development
(ORD)
Dr. Hecht welcomed attendees to the third year of the Collaborative Science and Technology Network for
Sustainability (CNS) program. The cooperative grants program was one of the first programs ORD
initiated when starting to work on Sustainability. ORD needed a process by which stakeholders could
achieve outcomes that were sustainable. Since the grants were awarded, grantees have submitted and
reported on excellent projects. It is always a pleasure to listen to and learn from these projects. As part of
the full Sustainability campaign, ORD now has a Sustainability strategy published on its Web Site at:
http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/pdfs/EPA-12057_SRS_R4-l.pdf Dr. Hecht thanked the participants
for their work, and emphasized that the results of these projects will be very important.
Introduction to the Meeting
Leanne Nurse, U.S. EPA, ORD, National Center for Environmental Research (NCER)
Ms. Nurse welcomed attendees and expressed her appreciation to the ORD management for the
opportunity to work on the CNS program. She is very encouraged with the progress the initial grantees
have made. She shared a quote from one of her teachers, which stated that because of humanity's self-
consciousness, "the mission of human beings is to contribute as conscious participants in the creative
evolution of the universe." Though the work of CNS is practical and oriented toward providing solutions
for Sustainability for communities, from a loftier standpoint, each grantee is participating in the work of
conscious evolutionary thinking. She added that the next days would be productive and interesting, and
thanked the participants for attending.
CNS PROJECT PRESENTATIONS
Harnessing the Hydrologic Disturbance Regime: Sustaining Multiple Benefits in Large River
Floodplains in the Pacific Northwest
Stanley Gregory, Oregon State University
Dr. Gregory's project studied the Willamette River Basin in Oregon, specifically the area upstream
between Corvallis and Eugene. The river basin was surveyed in 1995 and previously in 1850, and the
changes have been extraordinary. The loss of habitat had tremendous implications on the aquatic wildlife.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Dr. Gregory's project addressed the question: How can the Willamette River be restored using floods?
Floods are the natural process by which rivers restore themselves, and the goal is to harness this process.
Another variable studied is the climate change in the Pacific Northwest. The prediction is that the area
will have a much warmer climate over the next decade, with a 2°C to 4°C increase over the next century.
There also is a prediction for decreased summer precipitation, but this is less certain than the climate
change. Removal of riparian vegetation increases the rate of longitudinal warming, but not the
downstream maximum temperature, whereas increased air temperature will cause increased maximum
stream temperature. This has huge implications for cold water species as well as for invasive species that
are more tolerant of higher temperatures.
Municipalities are considering numerous ways to meet the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
requirements, as the temperature of treated sewer effluent exceeds the allowed level. One option is
refrigerating waste effluent, which will meet TMDL allocations, but it is a waste of energy. Another
approach is flow augmentation. Dr. Gregory looked at flood plain restoration, which has less certainty in
terms of meeting requirements, but has a lower cost. If the flood plain is restored, cold water refuges will
be created by subsurface temperature exchange. This could restore cold water habitats and meet cold
water refuge requirements. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will invest in
floodplain restoration to meet TMDL waste load allocations, but will monitor this project, and if it is not
working in 10 years, the project will end.
Dr. Gregory's group looked at hyporheic rivers, which act like a sewage treatment plant. Water flows
through gravel bars and is cleaned by microbes. The researchers placed 150 dataloggers per kilometer on
the bottom of the river. They studied floodplain alcoves, bar alcoves, and side channels. In one example,
in the Norwood Island Slough, springs enter at 11°C, though the rest of the water is 20°C; this can be
important in a warm environment. Dr. Gregory found that the floodplain alcoves studied were 65 percent
colder than the mainstem, and 39 percent of them were more than 2°C, which under Oregon law makes
the area a cold water refuge that has to be protected.
In the restoration process, levies will be moved back and areas will be flooded to restore exchange of
surface and subsurface water. Willamette Exchange (Willamex) is selling thermal credits, which would
pay landowners for maintaining or restoring floodplain function. Later, they may offer wetlands credits
and carbon credits. The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board has funded a 3-year study of fishes' use
of cold water refuges to determine whether the restoration of cold water habitats would have a positive
effect on designated beneficial uses under the Clean Water Act. The study will determine if fish are using
the cold water habitats differently than they use the mainstem.
Dr. Gregory's project contributes to Sustainability by: providing the scientific basis for meeting thermal
TMDL goals by restoring coldwater refuges in a large river through a market-based collaborative system;
identifying locations of coldwater refuges; modeling hyporheic influence on temperature; creating
dynamic visualization of complex information for stakeholders; providing a spatial framework for
decision makers; and working directly with stakeholders and environmental agencies to solve
environmental challenges.
Discussion
A participant asked if the goal in restoring the floodplain, which creates the side channels and alcoves
helpful for coldwater habitats, is not necessarily to change the temperature in the mainstem but to create
habitat in side areas. Dr. Gregory confirmed that this is correct. The issue was a sticking point with the
Oregon DEQ at first, because the department wanted to see temperatures lowered in the mainstem, but the
cold water refuge narrative standard carries equal legal weight. It would not have been possible to raise
the mainstem temperature significantly.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
A participant asked if the restoration approach would be limited in a more developed setting.
Additionally, on the thermal trading scheme, the value of lowering the temperature is very different
depending on where the warm water gaps are filled in with coldwater habitat. How will the trading
scheme account for that? Dr. Gregory explained that in terms of incentives, the details are just being
developed. Landowners will get more credit if the area provides a stepping zone between functional
habitats, and most credit might be on the interface of functional and less functional habitat. The Greater
Miami River in Ohio has a thermal trading program as well. In terms of urban areas, there is less
flexibility in restoration around the rivers. However, more people see projects in an urban area, and these
projects can act as a classroom on sustainability.
A participant asked if there is a rain regime in the Willamette River Basin. Dr. Gregory responded that
most of the rain occurs from October through March, so the warm season is also the low water season.
A participant asked Dr. Gregory to define the thermal measurement. Dr. Gregory answered that it varies
depending on the velocity of water in the area. In most areas measured, the researchers found that at least
one-half the depth is in the cool water zone. This can be predicted based on the permeability of the
floodplain substrates, which is the most variable parameter in the environment.
A participant asked how much the measured river depths vary. Dr. Gregory responded that they vary from
a quarter of a meter to 4 to 5 meters deep.
Water Resuse: An Integral Part of Sustainable Water Resource Planning
Paul Anderson, Illinois Institute of Technology
Dr. Anderson's research goal in studying water reuse was to provide the following key information to
decision makers: a demonstration of the need for efficient water use (a new concept in the Great Lakes
area), water reuse education, and identification of potential barriers and incentives. The biggest barrier
seems to be economic, so another goal was added to provide a tool for economic assessment.
Lake Michigan provides 90 percent of the water supply for northeastern Illinois, and the water level there
is falling. By law, no more than the current 90 percent of the water supply can be taken from Lake
Michigan. In the region, and in the United States as a whole, water is not used very efficiently. A large
fraction of the water used could be lower quality, because 60 percent of potable water is used for outdoor
irrigation and flushing toilets. There is not another commodity that the United States puts as much money
into only to throw it away. There are no federal water reuse regulations, though EPA issued guidelines in
2004. Based on 2004 data, 25 states have water reuse regulations.
The cost of water delivery depends on volume and distance, so the goal is to get the highest demand users
closest to the source. (Chicago's water cost is already low, so it is not a particularly good example in this
respect.) To create a secondary distribution system for lower quality water for uses that do not require
potable water, the main cost would be putting in the pipeline. However, there are some human health risks
inherent in water reuse, such as pathogens and chemical contaminants like pharmaceuticals and
pesticides, and ecosystem risks including phosphorus and nitrogen in the wastewater. In 2006, the Illinois
governor ordered a water supply study with the following stated mission: "To consider the future water
supply needs of northeastern Illinois and develop plans and programs to guide future use that provide
adequate and affordable water for all users, including support for economic development, agriculture and
the protection of our natural ecosystems."
Current water use data are limited, and there are challenges in creating change to promote water reuse due
to system inertia; communities are more accustomed to looking for new water sources instead of
considering reuse. Because Chicago was an outlier in terms of cost, Dr. Anderson's group formed a
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
partnership in Aurora, Illinois, which is experiencing rapid growth, has higher costs for water, has limited
water resources, and has recent experience with drought and watering restrictions.
Future efforts will involve identifying further methods to get more value from water. Geothermal water-
source heat pumps offer low-cost heat with less energy consumption and reduced carbon emissions. The
dual purpose water distribution system (potable and non-potable water) could have an integrated
infrastructure that includes the non-potable water supply and a ground loop for the heat pump system.
Key issues to overcome for the success of this project include economics, regulations, risk, and policy
decisions; officials must decide that this concept is worth examining.
Sustainable Sandhills: A Plan for Regional Sustainability
Susan Pulsipher, Sustainable Sandhills
Ms. Pulsipher explained that Sustainable Sandhills is a small nonprofit organization in North Carolina
that promotes regional Sustainability planning. Ms. Pulsipher added that their project under the CNS grant
created land-use suitability maps for 11 counties in the state, plus the Fort Bragg military base. The goals
of the project were to sustain Fort Bragg as a viable military installation, sustain the local ecosystem so
that it remains enjoyable for residents, and manage population and economic growth to sustain and
improve the existing environment. Land suitability maps point out how appropriate certain land is, in
terms of Sustainability, for a certain type of use based on the best available data and using simple and
transparent models. The researchers created a set of tools that graphically illustrate the competing
potential uses of land from a variety of viewpoints. This gives developers and planners a way to assess a
number of factors quickly before spending a lot of time and money on a piece of land or project. The
maps also provide elected officials, developers, and planners with the same set of base data to work from
when assessing how land is best utilized for the well-being of a community and region.
Land-use suitability criteria for commercial developments were considered highest if the land was near an
area of urban density, in a higher income area, near a primary road, and in or near a public water and
sewer service area. Land was considered of lower suitability for commercial use if any of the following
constraints were found: a steep slope, location in a floodplain or wetlands, and the presence of wet soils.
Sustainable Sandhills received feedback on the beta version of their tools from planners at a workshop in
September 2007, and now are distributing grid maps to planning offices. The results of the study will be
used in a 2008 Joint Land Use Study update of a 5-mile area around Fort Bragg to be conducted by the
Regional Land Use Advisory Committee (RLUAC), and will be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Regional Growth Plan of the Base Realignment and Closure Regional Task Force (BRAC-RTF). Both
RLUAC and BRAC-RTF are participating in the suitability map development. The CNS project and
models will form the basis for a military funded land-use modeling project covering another 13 counties
in southeast North Carolina. Ms. Pulsipher noted that the enthusiasm with which developers received the
project was surprising, but very encouraging.
Discussion
Dr. Gregory noted that in his region, with some models, local planners wanted to have the controls (such
as knobs and sliders) available to adjust the weightings themselves, and asked if the Sustainable
Sandhills' program had this capacity for the user. Ms. Pulsipher responded that the level of sophistication
that Dr. Gregory described would require more development funding.
Mr. Dan Vizzini asked if Sustainable Sandhills had received any negative feedback from property rights
supporters. Ms. Pulsipher explained that the group had not yet received such feedback, but they currently
were trying to keep a low profile. The group wants to get the tools in the hands of the planners, then into
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
the development community so builders can use them, because some do understand geographic
information systems (GIS). It will gradually filter out into the general public and to the elected officials,
but the researchers are letting the planners take the lead. Later in the month, she will present the tool to
the long-range planning commission of Southern Pines, North Carolina, and to the elected officials of 11
counties. She imagines there will be some negative response from some stakeholders, but she had already
responded to a planner who asked how these data will affect land values. The answer is that they should
not have an effect.
Ms. Nurse mentioned that with the BRAC transition in St. Mary's County, Maryland, the local
government was completely overwhelmed. It is a rural area with two or three Superfund sites, and the
existing structure could not take the change. This is a BRAC example similar to Fort Bragg. Ms.
Pulsipher stated that the Army may have learned a lesson from that, because the BRAC-RTF is funded by
the military, and has an elected board with transportation, water, sewer, housing, and school working
groups. They have consultants on these groups, and Sustainable Sandhills is sitting in on many of the
groups. The region is trying to be proactive.
Dr. Gregory offered information for Sustainable Sandhills in terms of questions they may receive on
property values. A recent study at Oregon State University on property values versus planning showed
that zoning had no effect on property value. It does not change the land values, at least in the Northwest
where the study was conducted.
Mr. Vizzini noted a study at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, that examined the effect of open areas
near property in terms of property values, and owners benefit in this case. He asked if transfer of
development rights, in which a landowner transfers building rights from one location to another, is
available in North Carolina. Ms. Pulsipher responded that state laws restrict this kind of activity. Mr.
Vizzini explained that such transfer of development rights created areas of heightened density and
urbanization; a problem in Portland was that planners did not create enough receiving areas.
Sustainability of Land Use in Puerto Rico
Juan Lara and Carlos Padin-Bibiloni, Universidad Metropolitana, Puerto Rico
Dr. Padin-Bibiloni stated that the primary aim of this project is to develop a model using GIS with a land
use Sustainability index. This will provide a scientifically reliable tool to measure and monitor the impacts
of the progression of the urban environment on the quality and availability of land, ecosystems, and water
in Puerto Rico for long-term Sustainability. Four municipalities are being used as case studies, and the
outcomes will be transferable to the other municipalities in Puerto Rico. The model also could be
transferable to other islands. There are 78 municipalities in Puerto Rico, all of which must have a land-use
plan that must be revised every 8 years. The island has a high population density (429 inhabitants per
square kilometer), topographical limitations, and a serious combination of natural hazards.
A great challenge when considering land Sustainability in Puerto Rico is that no single resource on Puerto
Rico remains unaffected by urban sprawl, and 22 percent of the island is urban. From 1935-2000, the
population of the San Juan metropolitan area has increased by 49.9 percent, but the amount of developed
land increased by 1,286 percent.
The project has several components. First, the researchers will describe the current land-use situation
using selected indicators as stressors and relievers, which evaluate how close or far the municipality is
from Sustainability of land use based on available and reliable information. They will establish a base
optimal land use for the selected indicators that will help measure positive or negative change through
time. Using these indicators, they will provide a land-use Sustainability index to measure status and
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
progress, and hope to receive constant feedback and collaboration on the decision-making process from
stakeholders and advisors.
Dr. Lara explained that a tentative group of 23 indicators was selected by the project team with the input
of an Advisory Committee composed mainly of local and federal government agencies and municipal
officials. Indicators were chosen based on their relevance and functionality for land-use planning at the
municipal level, adaptability to different scenarios in 78 municipalities, ability to evaluate both the current
situation and future tendencies, and expression of a value that is both quantitative and qualitative.
Indicators were separated into stressors (SI) and relievers (RI), and each was weighted. ISLA (the index
created using SI and RI) ranges in value from 1 to 100, as do RI and SI individually. RI is calculated as a
weighted geometric mean of individual reliever indicators, each of which has been divided first by a
benchmark value. SI is calculated in the same manner, but using stressor indicators. In ISLA, the value 10
separates sustainability from non-sustainability. At 10, stressors and relievers cancel each other. Below
10, stressors outweigh relievers, and for values higher than 10, relievers outweigh stressors.
When the ISLA composite index model was run for the first time, all four municipalities used as case
studies came out very low in sustainability (lower than 10), a mirror of the unsustainable reality of land-
use trends in Puerto Rico. At this phase of the project, the research team is re-evaluating and validating
the parameters used in the model (benchmarks/planning objectives) with the Advisory Committee and
local experts.
The researchers have discussion meetings with stakeholders every 2 to 3 months. Stakeholders'
participation from the beginning resulted in successful collaboration and interest in using the results of the
project for decision-making. Land-use planning goals are being discussed and evaluated with stakeholders
as alternatives when there are no clear and agreed upon benchmarks for the indicators.
In the future, the researchers hope to use the index as the basis for an objective tool to evaluate
performance for sustainability: development of Puerto Rico's State of Land Use for Sustainability Report,
in which municipalities will be ranked every 4 to 8 years according to land-use "eco-efficiency." They
hope to use this report for municipal ordinances and public policies, and to provide support to
municipalities for specific land-use sustainability projects. The project team believes there will be
opportunities to fine-tune some indicators that now suffer due to a lack of reliable data. Future research
would include the possibility to expand the indicators to a regional scale using watersheds or regional
municipal economic initiatives as territorial planning units.
Discussion
A participant noted that with a scale of 1 to 100, if the cut-off for sustainability is 10, that leaves little
room to show a broad range of unsustainable activities. Dr. Lara responded that the Advisory Committee
also raised this as a concern, because the information should not be summarized so much in the index that
the details are missed. That is why the researchers realized that they needed a separate stressor index and
reliever index, so they each could be examined individually as well as in the index. Because the two
groups of indicators point in different directions, part of what the researchers want to capture is how they
pull against each other. At number 10, there is a stalemate between stressors and relievers. This is not a
scale that can be interpreted in uniform units because it is based on a square root.
Mr. Vizzini commented that this will have an effect on public policy because the math will drive the
decisions. Policy will not necessarily focus on individual items, but on the composite of stressors and
relievers. It will be interesting to see how this develops over time. He is interested in the way the
researchers got to the benchmarks, because that is essentially a political discussion as much as an
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
economic or land use one. Dr. Lara explained that one of the difficulties the project team had was
distinguishing benchmarks from policy objectives, and they still are not sure they understand the
distinction very well. Dr. Padin-Bibiloni added that benchmarks come from various policies. The
researchers also looked at other U.S. policies concerning certain indicators. For example, in determining
the benchmark of pounds of solid waste per person, they used the lowest in Puerto Rico. Mr. Vizzini
asked if the indicators resulted from a review of existing policies. Dr. Padin-Bibiloni said that this was
correct. Mr. Vizzini noted that the idea of carrying capacity is more significant on an island than
anywhere else, and asked if this topic arose in discussion. Ms. Maria Juncos-Gautier, another member
of the project team, answered that this was a challenge to discuss with the Advisory Committee,
because Puerto Rico's resources are not sustainable with the current levels of development. Dr. Padin-
Bibiloni added that what the group was seeking with this indicator was a tool to help guide decision-
making so the situation does not worsen.
Dr. Anderson asked if the weighting of indicators came from the Advisory Committee. Dr. Padin-Bibiloni
answered that they had come from the Advisory Committee as well as state and federal agencies,
planning commissions, and different stakeholders.
Dr. Gregory stated that some people would just see the index as a number that did not make any sense.
Are there any other ideas for visualization in the works, such as urban footprints, for instance, as an
indicator of how much land would be necessary for Puerto Rico to have to be sustainable at current
levels? Dr. Padin-Bibiloni answered that a study showed that if Puerto Rico continued the same type of
development it is now conducting, the entire island will be developed in 75 years. This research can be
important in educating people in Puerto Rico. One political party's vision of Puerto Rico is a city island
with the rural areas as parks, and this is what the project is working against.
Cuyahoga Sustainability Network
Stuart Schwartz, University of Maryland-Baltimore County
Dr. Schwartz's project tried to identify key information gaps and needs for sustainable decision-making in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. His project is centered at the intersection of natural systems, engineered
systems, and social systems that constrain decision-making, and examines environmental, economic, and
social Sustainability. Dr. Schwartz studied landscape influences on environmental services, urban
hydrology and sustainable landscapes, and the economic demand for environmentally sustainable design.
As part of the project, a pervious concrete installation at Cleveland State University was combined with a
workshop, and this has been very successful. The installation now has been through two winters and
survived without any problems. The new administration building at the university has a parking lot paved
with pervious concrete, and the Wade Oval, part of the cultural center in Cleveland, has a pervious
concrete performance stage.
Dr. Schwartz's project quantified site infiltration using an IIHR Digital Infiltrometer Controller to
conduct infiltration tests. Two of the three sites studied had negligible infiltration. Wade Oval infiltration
is poor, though it is a significant area of premier greenspace, and it produces significant runoff from
storms. This has shaped a lot of the thinking about pervious lands. Researchers increasingly are
embracing the idea that they need to ask why lawns are producing so much runoff instead of just seeing if
a rain garden will help reduce the runoff. Another infiltration problem is due to the modern practice of
land development that removes topsoil and its hydrologic surfaces. Cleveland Botanical Garden is
experimenting with a "no-mow" lawn of native grasses and plants.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Hedonic analysis looked at price signals for environmental design. As an example demonstrating that
economics is a key factor in sustainability, Cleveland's first published project in conservation design was
not printed in sustainability literature but in an appraisal journal.
Dr. Schwartz's future work will involve conducting a community tree survey in Cleveland; urban forest
services in conjunction with Cuyahoga GreenPrint, Cleveland Metroparks, and Cleveland Street Trees;
further infiltration and hydrologic services, including a study of the hydrologic function of rain gardens
and urban pervious areas; lawn treatment for infiltration, and the quality and function of no-mow lawns
and lawn care; pervious concrete partnerships in Chesapeake Bay; and new spatial design models.
Framework for Sustainable Watershed Management
Charles App, EPA Region 3, Environment Assessment and Innovation Division
Mr. App gave this presentation for Pamela V'Combe of the Delaware River Basin Commission who was
unable to attend the meeting. The research was conducted in the Pocono Creek Watershed, an area which
is less than 50 percent developed, but which saw a population increase of more than 50 percent in the past
decade due to the fact that it is 90 minutes from both New York City and Philadelphia. The population is
expected to double during the next 20 years. Current residents do not want to lose their current resources,
including the trout stream, when this development occurs. Sustainability goals for the watershed include
maintenance of high-quality water, preservation of stream corridors and floodplains, development using
conservation design, preservation of open space, and the establishment of an economy compatible with
the environment. The researchers are trying to predict how the growth will affect the trout stream in terms
of flow.
The project goal is to use sound science to develop water resource management strategies and polices that
local decision makers can adopt and implement. Land use will drive what happens with the groundwater.
More development will mean more impervious surfaces.
The researchers conducted a hydrology model study using a Hydroecological Integrity Assessment
Process (HIP), which links stream flow and stream health to maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems. The
results they found based on projected build out in the area showed that stream recharge would be reduced
in 26 out of 29 recharge areas. They measured the effects on base flow from groundwater withdrawals
and this reduced recharge from land-use change. The projected build out will change the nature of the
stream in numerous ways. In each of the indicators (flow conditions, frequency of flow events, duration
of flow events, timing, and rate of change in flow events), there is some significant effect from the build
out. Groundwater withdrawals and surface water withdrawals have an equal effect on stream flow.
The researchers hope that there will be a flow/trout (meaning a change in abundance of trout) indicator
relationship. If this is the case, then they will develop flow standards. HIP will be applied statewide to all
the streams. The project team is conducting discussions with the fish and boat commission to see if the
tool can be linked to the biological community that they are trying to protect. The group will seek funding
for this project.
Discussion
Dr. Gregory noted that it was strange that brown trout would be protected because it is an invasive
species. Mr. App responded that there was debate as to whether it is invasive, but in Pennsylvania it is
highly valued.
Dr. Anderson asked how the researchers communicated the sophisticated models to stakeholders. Mr.
App noted that there have been statistical measures for each of these models, but agreed that they are
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
difficult to explain. The watershed hydrologic model is sophisticated, as is the groundwater model;
however, the HIP is easy to apply.
Moving Toward Sustainable Manufacturing Through Efficient Materials and Energy Use
Terri Goldberg, Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
Ms. Goldberg explained that her project group developed the Energy and Materials Flow and Cost
Tracker (EMFACT), a software program intended to assist small and medium-sized businesses in the
United States. EMFACT will help users to: better track and understand the use and flow of fuel, water,
and materials through their facility; better understand the actual costs of poor resource efficiency and
subsequent waste management; and improve decision-making and environmental performance via
continuous tracking.
EMFACT can be used to track fuel, water and materials use, generation of air emissions, wastewater, and
solid hazardous waste, and associated costs. The tool will be available online at no cost. The user has the
ability to define many options themselves, including the site, equipment, inputs, products, and non-
product outputs. The components can be linked together and analyzed, and reports can be generated for
further analysis. EMFACT was designed to be user-friendly, with menu paths provided for all windows.
Though this ability is in an early stage of development, EMFACT will have the capacity to collect
relevant cost data for materials and waste management and disposal. When the project team surveyed
potential users, regulatory compliance issues were raised as an important concern. Therefore, EMFACT
incorporated lists of regulated chemicals, and can flag and report on them. Users also can create their own
chemical lists, and EMFACT will note if permits are required for certain chemicals and will keep track of
when these permits are due.
Development will continue for another 2 to 4 weeks, with the launch of version one scheduled for March
2008. The beta version will be available in December at the time of the groups' advisory meeting. Ms.
Goldberg's hope is that users will be able to develop useful efficiency reports with EMFACT.
Bringing Global Thinking to Local Sustainability Efforts: A Collaborative Project
for the Boston Metropolitan Region
James Goldstein, Tellus Institute
The purpose of Tellus Institute's "Boston Scenarios" project is to support sustainable regional planning
by providing tools and methods that promote an integrated long-term systems approach. Currently, there
is much pressure on the developing suburbs around Boston, Massachusetts. These areas are poorly served
by public transportation. The project involves coordination with MetroFutures (another regional group
involved in Sustainability), consultation with stakeholders, and data collection, review, and synthesis.
Tellus enhanced its Pole Star scenario building tool for the project. The institute developed scenarios that
would occur under three circumstances: business as usual, policy reform, and deep change.
Although Boston Scenarios is EPA funded, MetroFutures is stakeholder-driven. Boston Scenarios relied
on existing data sources for the scenarios created, and adopted MetroFutures "business as usual" scenario,
under which there is little change in production and consumption patterns, and resource equity is not
addressed. These scenarios are not predictions, but possibilities. Because they are predicted to 2050, they
are necessarily vague. The deep change scenario would keep consumption within the region's equitable
global share of resources. It requires changes in values leading to changes in lifestyles and institutions,
along with technology innovations, to achieve Sustainability with global responsibility. The middle-of-
the-road scenario is policy reform, in which technological and policy measures are emphasized to
moderate ecological destruction and social inequality.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
The deep change scenario was strongly endorsed by Boston Scenarios' Advisory Group, sectoral working
groups, and project participants, though the significant challenges inherent in this scenario were
acknowledged. The advisory group was hand-picked from those in sustainability leadership roles in the
region already, so it is not representative of the community at large.
The deep change scenario requires large carbon dioxide reductions that could be achieved through the
following changes needed to increase efficiency and renewables: a reduction in the work week would
lower overall GDP by 25; percent smaller houses and more multi-family houses would mean a reduced
rate of appliance growth; more compact communities would mean less driving and air travel; reduced
demand for goods would mean less freight is transported; reduced consumption of goods would mean
reduced commercial floor space and reduced industrial output. There would be reduced electricity
generation due to all of the above.
The Boston Scenarios project led to an infusion of science-based systems approaches, integrating
sustainability and local and global concerns into a regional planning effort and stakeholder process. It also
raised awareness among policymakers and citizens of the need to examine the role of values and lifestyle
in social, environmental, and economic elements of sustainability.
Tellus' PoleStar is now being used in 11 regions to update global scenarios. The group's future work will
involve disseminating the scenario approach, and the deep change scenario in particular, in educational
materials, and an ongoing involvement in Boston's regional policy efforts, such as transportation and
energy.
NOVEMBER 9, 2007
CMS PROJECT PRESENTATION
Integrating Water Supply and Ecological Flow Requirements
Richard Vogel and Stacey Archfield, Tufts University
Dr. Vogel explained that the project examined the water supply deficits from low flows in rivers due to
human and natural causes, and tried to determine how a balance could be achieved between human and
ecological requirements. The current need to balance human and ecological flows results from our
historical lack of attention given to ecological flows (instream flow) in water resource management.
There are dozens of texts and tens of thousands of articles on the management of reservoirs for human
needs, but until very recently, they only assigned a minimum flow requirement for instream flows.
There is a sizable literature addressing each of the following problems: instream flow needs, optimal
reservoir management for human uses, and water resource policy and negotiations. However, there is very
little literature integrating these three areas. Ecological flow stress is caused by increased human
withdrawals, natural climate variability, climate change, and land-use changes. Dr. Vogel's project
examined reducing ecological flow stresses by improving environmental releases.
The watershed systems approach uses flow duration curves (FDCs) as a tool for ecological flow
assessments. The ecodeficit is a volume of water no longer flowing in the stream, and in this project it
represents reduction in streamflow after the river is regulated by withdrawals from a reservoir. Some
standards exist for instream flow, but these may not protect habitat and are not adaptive. In most cases,
reservoir release requirements are imposed. Ms. Archfield explained that the goal of the project was to
examine the impact of a range of release policies on the reservoir storage capacity, water supply yield,
and instream flow.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 10
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
The reservoir release policies that were considered cover a range from no instream flow release to a
fraction of inflow with drought management. There is a supply impact associated with each. How much
yield is lost to gain a certain flow regime that supports fish in the stream? Demand reduction has an
enormous impact on the storage yield curve.
The project team's research involves quantifying tradeoffs between competing water management
objectives; integrating a more precise definition of ecosystem flow needs into water supply management;
providing a tool for optimization of the timing and use of drought management, water conservation, and
other reservoir release strategies; and promoting a consensus-based decision-making approach to
management of water resources.
Discussion
Dr. George Vander Velde asked how many dams in the Northeast are hydroelectric, and what effect
sedimentation has on the models. Dr. Vogel responded that quite a few are multipurpose reservoirs, and
the research had not looked at sedimentation.
Dr. Gregory asked, concerning the 40 percent flow standard for the area, how the research deals with
certain flows that are absolutely required for a certain species in a case where 40 percent would not meet
the ecological objectives critical for an endangered species spawning habitat. Is there a variance from the
40 percent rule when it cannot meet a designated use? Ms. Archfield responded that the researchers had
tried to incorporate that with one policy where there is a fraction inflow, but if that fraction is lower than
some threshold the reservoir is forced to release to keep the threshold. The project looked at that situation
for low flows, but not for the whole range of flows.
Dr. Gregory noted that considering the project's partnership with the Nature Conservancy, and using their
multimetric index of flow as a surrogate for fishery services, the real operating tradeoff is the risk of
water supply services and the risk of fishery or ecosystem services. Is the research planning to go beyond
a flow metric as the deviation to the risk-based tradeoff? Dr. Vogel responded that the tradeoff is between
the reliability of meeting both objectives. The researchers examined that tradeoff for different reliabilities
of water supply, but have not assigned any risk-based or reliability-based metrics to the instream flow.
This would be a good challenge. Dr. Gregory asked about moving from flow metrics to fishery metrics.
Dr. Vogel noted that the group has other ongoing research: They are working with a data set of more than
200 basins with dams for which they have the downstream flow data for 20 years before and after the dam
was constructed, and they are examining the effects on flow. Fisheries argue for dozens of statistics to
determine suitability, but it can be boiled down to about three or four statistics. There are some
tremendous gaps in this project. Hydrologists have not gotten involved in the debate on how much water
the river needs; it has been fishery people who are involved. Dr. Gregory noted that with Western water
rights law, all water demands are not equal under the law. Dr. Vogel responded that the study was East
Coast centric, and employed a riparian philosophy. The Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) system
was used because it is one of the only models with as much attention to detail on the demand as the
supply. The group hopes another case study could be done on the West Coast.
Dr. Audrey Levine asked if the model takes water quality and climate change into account. Dr. Vogel
answered that the natural flow regime is the target, and water quality is completely ignored. It is a balance
between allowing more development and replacing flow downstream. Examining climate change will be
the next step. The first requirement is to find out what is happening under a stationary climate.
Mr. Vizzini asked if the flow duration curves for the ecodeficit and ecosurplus had been used elsewhere.
Dr. Vogel responded that the technique came out of this project, and he had not seen it used anywhere
else. It came out of a struggle to figure out indicators that were representative when just dealing with
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 11
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
flows and the quantity of water. The researchers hope to be able to say how useful it is when compared
with other indicators.
Dr. Anderson asked for clarification on the management approach's influence on the smaller reservoirs.
Dr. Vogel answered that if only the minimum flow is released, it does not hurt the small reservoirs as
much as the large ones, as a small reservoir has many releases already, so the flattening effect of the
management is smaller. The group is trying to look at different strategies for different kinds of reservoirs.
PANEL 1: WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION
Panel Members:
Audrey Levine, EPA, ORD, National Program Manager, Drinking Water
Bonnie Thie, EPA, Office of Water, Policy, Communications and Resource Management
Stuart Schwartz, University of Maryland-Baltimore County (CNS Grantee, Cuyahoga
Sustainability Network)
Dr. Levine explained that the research program she is trying to integrate and craft examines the kind of
research support needed to ensure a safe drinking water supply. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA)
focused on making water safe from contaminants, but does not focus on water Sustainability or quantity.
There are primary and secondary drinking water standards that have maximum contaminant levels. The
industry is forced to treat water for safe drinking water requirements, and there is a large infrastructure
that distributes water from reservoirs, groundwater, and other sources, but the issues relevant to
Sustainability are water sources, not distribution. In the SDWA, there is a little bit of attention to source
water protection, but it is not enforceable. All of the enforceable parts are at the distribution end. How can
water resource protection and Sustainability get into the dialogue? As land-use patterns change to make
biofuels, the way water is used changes, as does the water quality. This affects drinking water source
quantity and quality. It is challenging to get this into the drinking water paradigm because of the way the
SDWA is crafted. A start would be to examine source waters and water treatments to determine if they
are sustainable. A lot of focus now is on the infrastructure. Many pipes were designed for the early 20th
century to ensure that there was enough water distributed. The infrastructure must be improved to
promote Sustainability, safety, and reliability of water programs. The main challenges are institutional
barriers. Drinking water, wastewater treatment, water reuse, and wastewater management are
disconnected in many parts of the United States. For example, in Florida, there is a lot of pressure to reuse
wastewater for irrigation and other applications, but because water is a commodity, there is competition.
Drinking water conservation means revenue lost to the water community, but gained by the water reuse
community. It is challenging to determine ways to overcome institutional barriers. Another challenge is
determining a way to measure success. It is obvious when there is not enough water, but how can it be
shown that there is enough?
Ms. Thie stated that she is based in the Office of Water, Policy, Communications and Resource
Management within EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, which primarily focuses on
protecting human health, but that her group focuses on habitat issues and how to protect the entire
ecosystem. Sustainability brings these issues together. The watershed approach has been around for a long
time, but her group is trying to mainstream this approach. The idea consists of three points: (1) it has a
geographic focus, is hydrologically defined, and includes all stressors; (2) it includes all stakeholders,
because not much progress would be made without this collaboration; and (3) it has a strategic focus on
addressing water resource protection issues. One way her group is working toward this goal is through the
targeted watershed grants. Since 2003, roughly $13 million a year has been available. Competitive grants
are $500,000 to $1,000,000 each, and the group is very interested in establishing partnerships. Her office
also gives larger grants, known as implementation grants. In the Cumberland River area in Tennessee and
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 12
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Kentucky, EPA gave builders such grants to implement green buildings on the urban, suburban, and rural
scale. This has been so successful that the builders were able to expand their work beyond the pilot
project. She asked meeting participants to consider how to map successes and get them into use. How can
EPA and grantees get people to change their behaviors? Another implementation grant went to the
Christina Basin Clean Water Partnership in Delaware, which focuses on urban issues. Almost 50 percent
of stream miles there are impaired due to industry, agriculture, sewage treatment plants, and urban and
suburban runoff. They have developed control plans and smart yards, and have encouraged the use of
native plants and habitats.
Dr. Schwartz's work supports Sustainability by looking at the portfolio of joint services that results from
cumulative processes on the landscape scale. Much of his work studies replacing or mitigating lost
function. Hyperfunctionality occurs when function is lost across the whole area and a very highly
functioning small area tries to make up for this lost function. There is a 40 percent flow goal in the
Chesapeake Bay. Larger challenges in his research involve targeting key information needs. Mr.
Hawkins, District of Columbia Department of the Environment, commented that his successes could be
attributed to information at his hands when he went into discussions. Most of the developers are not out to
destroy the land, and will do what is asked of them, but public officials do not know what to ask for in
terms of sustainable practices. The key is getting them the information they need. There is a need to
understand the cumulative effects of distributed best management practices (BMPs). Dr. Schwartz
examines individual infiltration structures and rain gardens but researchers do not know the cumulative
effect of putting in a thousand rain gardens in a 250-acre development. However, decisions still have to
be made. With some of the recent work on the watershed scale, cumulative effects matter. Another of his
group's approaches is trying to plant seeds of Sustainability through partnerships, but with that comes the
risk that germination rates are unpredictable and uneven. The idea of trying to commoditize Sustainability
by transforming sustainable technologies into boutique specialty items and services is simply an idea
based on using good practices and good ways of doing business that also happen to have Sustainability
outcomes associated with them. He asked the group to think about ways to integrate reliability,
Sustainability, and efficiency. Part of the move towards efficiency or Sustainability has to involve a
consideration of the tradeoff with reliability. Part of planning for Sustainability must consider resiliency
and the effects of changing the load factor at which the system operates, and part of the challenge in this
integration is to think about how to evaluate risk-based decisions.
Dr. Vogel questioned EPA's emphasis on watersheds. Watersheds are important, but there needs to be a
change, and research will have to focus on hydrologic units (small parts of watersheds where decisions
are made) as well. Once the profession works with models of that type, researchers will be able to answer
the distributed decision-making questions that Dr. Schwartz is asking. These models are in their infancy,
and have to be encouraged. The old data are more watershed-based, but now most data are actually grid-
based and require grid-based modeling. This is a very different way of thinking about the watershed. For
example, at the mouth of the Mississippi River, the hydrologic units are dominated by inflow, and the
watershed becomes irrelevant in terms of management requirements.
Ms. Thie agreed that the participants had good points. She is aware that EPA and others are working on
hydrologic units as well as the entire watershed.
Dr. Gregory noted the need for research to be explicit about the time required for certain outcomes. Quite
often in watershed programs, researchers consider actions for land-use resource consumption and
balancing restoration, but are not explicit about time. Has EPA been able to be more explicit in watershed
programs about the timing of their actions, the degree of their impact, and when the outcomes will be
achieved? He noted that stakeholders often expected instant gratification with these projects. Ms. Thie
responded that the measurement pendulum is always swinging. However, looking for immediate to rapid
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 13
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
measurable results does tend to undercut the significance of the long-term measures that might happen
more slowly.
Dr. Vander Velde said that for technology adoption to take place, there must be three kinds of knowledge:
awareness is first. Unfortunately, a lot of government programs stop at this point. Second is technical
knowledge. In watershed projects where technology has been implemented, bringing stakeholders in so
they know and understand technical principles is important. Third is "how-to" and hands-on knowledge.
His program invoked these three, and the results were phenomenal. They went from a typical approach,
with adoption rates of 5 percent at best, to going through demonstrations with the stakeholders. They now
do onsite training for the second type of knowledge, then highly recommend that the company do a pilot
project. The pilot will answer the question: "Is it going to work for us?" Adoption rates now are up to 60
to 70 percent, but the work is more intensive and takes a longer period of time. How can other research
get to this stage? Perhaps a plan to bring in parties from other geographic areas should be included in the
research project. When they go back to their own area, they will be pioneers. That is the only way his
group has been getting much higher implementation rates.
Ms. Thie noted that this is the kind of process that EPA has been more aware of for the last 3 years. The
Agency has shifted from just developing tools. Education was a mantra, but they found that unless they
took the next step of helping the organization walk through the process, people just would not adopt the
tools. The idea of bringing other people from other locations into the research is a good one. The way to
transfer knowledge is to bring people into the partnership.
Ms. Archfield stated that she was struck by Dr. Levine's comments about not looking at just water
quality, but sustainable water quantity. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
focuses on sustainable quality management of ground and surface water withdrawals. Are there more
formalized programs in EPA looking at this?
Dr. Levine explained that a lot of the drivers are regulatory, and much is regulated at the state, not federal,
level. However, this issue is really about awareness. There has not been a good mechanism to really
educate people on this topic, and there will not be until the mindset changes and mechanisms for
Sustainability are brought in. She is optimistic that it will happen, but it is not happening yet.
Dr. Gregory made an observation on energy flow. From an ecologist's point of view, it is not the goal just
to maximize efficiency; the energy flow has to be stable. In commercial fisheries, researchers learned that
by increasing efficiency, they are having a bigger impact on the resource. Every time researchers talk
about optimization routines and maximizing efficiency, they run the risk of losing the community simply
because they emphasize a few winners and create a lot of losers.
Dr. Schwarz noted that when comparing industrial systems of water supply to ecological systems,
something that is lost in partial interpretation is the idea that he was trying to capture: Researchers are
missing the resilience or brittleness cost associated with efficiency. This is an inherent tradeoff.
Dr. Vander Velde explained that there is a project in Illinois that is relatively simple but expensive. The
project turned levies into sieves so that the land that had been converted to farmland was returned to
wetland. This outcome is not instant. However, one thing that it did immediately accomplish was to create
a huge area in the fly way, and there was a large influx of migratory waterfowl into that area.
Dr. Gregory emphasized that this is a case of trying to be explicit about the timing and the degree of
recovery. A sieve provides wetland, but the flood plain has many other functions as well. What does
society want in terms of its landscape? Researchers must be more articulate about the degree of function
and the amount of time that recovery will take.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 14
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Ms. Thie asked the group to consider how to translate research results into practice and use. How many of
the grantees' projects include allocations for this?
Dr. Anderson responded that his project included outreach and education. The planning agency wants to
adopt spatial economic tools that his group will develop. They also will hold conferences and a workshop.
Mr. App explained that he is working on the Sustainability of a high-quality trout stream. Part of the
project is assessing the effects of growth. EPA will be working on recommendations for the county, but
he is concerned about going the next step. How is the county going to take those recommendations and
will they be able to put them into practice? This is a small rural area. The residents have told EPA they
alone could not have done what the Agency is helping them do. They were glad that EPA and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) offered assistance. This seems typical of a lot of small communities without
expertise. They do not have the resources to do the right thing even though they would like to, and some
help is needed.
Dr. Gregory stated that his group is working with some of the local non-governmental organizations on
restoration of the river, and helping them design on-the-ground restoration at no cost to them, because his
group would like to see the application of their work. They have been meeting with farmers to see what
kind of restoration program they would find workable in their landscape. When interviewed, some of the
farmers admitted to finding federal and state awards to be disincentives and embarrassments, while local
awards were more of an incentive.
Dr. Vander Velde explained that he had done a tremendous amount of work with the city of Chicago. A
large coalition was formed to work on highly polluted and economically depressed areas. The coalition,
primarily of governmental agencies, developed an "ecotox" index. They were able to get accurate
numbers from EPA on human health, but what about ecology and habitats? That fundamental information
was lacking. In several of the parcels, resident species were unknown. His agency funded research in that
area because there is a need to know what species are being protected. The outcome revealed an amazing
species diversity in what was considered a slag area. There is a large amount of research that goes into
restoration of these processes. His group has the luxury of an individual in their organization with
expertise on sediment. There is a great deal of data on sediment in the Illinois River for the last 15 years.
There used to be major fishery around Peoria, and that is now gone because the average water depth was
10 feet, and now is about 1.5 feet due to urban development and farming practices. His group was able to
do research on that sediment, and took 110 barge loads to the city of Chicago for use as topsoil. The city
is using the material to create a park on top of the slag.
Ms. Goldberg noted that there is a whole field of social marketing that addresses ways to change human
behaviors. This is a key aspect of the way people communicate with each other. It involves understanding
what is preventing them from making changes. It requires a lot of piloting and trial and error, and is fairly
intensive. Often their projects do not have that next funding allocation.
Mr. Vizzini added that people reach a moment when they are ready to change. People at the bureau
questioned his team when their engineering group implemented combined sewer overflow (CSO) patrols.
No one knew how to have the kind of conversation with property owners necessary to achieve their goals.
The idea is to get as much information out there as possible, and then be available to help.
Dr. Levine noted that social marketing is important in certain projects, especially with projects that are
stopped due to a stigma attached to them. For example, EPA works hard to make drinking water safe, but
many people drink bottled water, which does not have the same kind of protection. This is a ripe area for
social marketing.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 15
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
PANEL 2: CLEAN ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Panel Members:
Robert Ritter, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration,
Planning Capacity Building Team
Graham Pugh, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Policy and International Affairs,
Climate Change, Policy and Technology
Sherri Hunt, EPA, ORD, NCER
Hannah Campbell, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office
Mr. Ritter said that his group at the DOT is working with state DOTs, and a single voice for their work
can be found at the Center for Climate Change in DOT. Their Web Site URL is: climate.dot.gov. He
highlighted an initiative the group completed in the Gulf Coast region. There is a significant likelihood of
a sea level rise there, and the chance that a huge percentage transportation infrastructure will be
underwater. There is a challenge ahead. His group also is planning environment linkages that are broader
than climate change. They have been trying to create a connection between transportation projects and
environmental issues, and to foster cooperation in long-range planning processes. They are talking to
experts on environmental resources to identify needs for transportation systems and the goals for the
environmental resources.
Mr. Pugh is part of the climate policy and technology office in DOE, which has a strategic plan for the
climate change technology program available at the URL: climate.technology.gov. The goal is to
understand greenhouse gas mitigation technologies. It is very easy to pick technology winners. However,
with all the available energy technologies, how can they make a rational portfolio investment? How do
they determine what will get more money; is there a rational way to do that? They use an integrative
assessment model that is an energy and economic model of the world. It is mainly focused on U.S.
impacts. Scenarios are dependent on a number of assumptions, including not only the technological
maturity of all these technologies but also the potential these have to mitigate a certain number of carbon
emissions. It is interesting to run some scenario analyses, because it is not intuitive. Another part of his
group's work beyond energy research and development is understanding the technologies' barriers to
market penetration. They have been conducting a study to examine and identify the barriers. There are
three main messages. The first is to use a portfolio approach when planning. Do not pick winners based
on popularity. Everyone has a limited amount of money: spend it for the biggest return on investment in
terms of carbon mitigation for climate control purposes. Carbon is not everything, but for climate change
purposes it is the focus. The second is to choose technology appropriate for the situation. For example, it
is better to buy solar panels in Phoenix than in Portland. In Phoenix, they can offset peak flow and can be
economical. Like biofuels, solar energy is more popular than deserved from a carbon standpoint. The
third consideration is a lifecycle carbon approach. Choose technology that will be effective in the future
regardless of climate change. Energy efficiency is the best investment in terms of carbon mitigation.
Ms. Hunt explained that she focuses on air and particulate matter, and also global change. Her group has
been trying to understand the impact of climate change on air quality. They want to mitigate global
change, but first need to understand its impact. If only the weather changes, how does that impact air
quality? Carbon is not the only thing that is going to change. Additionally, her group is supporting
programs on changes in emissions. Those projects are examining transportation planning and land use. If
it is taken into account that the climate is changing, emissions would have to be reduced by another 10
percent to get today's air quality in 2050. There also is a lot of energy coming from buildings, so there is
a push for green buildings. A city can bring in water from outside the area, but residents have to breathe
the air that is in their city. She expressed an interest in some of the comments about technology transfer in
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 16
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
the earlier projects. There is a real opportunity to transfer the technology to other countries. Additionally,
there are a few programs within the air group promoting behavioral change.
Ms. Campbell stated that the research division of the NOAA climate program offices has a Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program that offers competitive research grants. These
projects look at different regional sectors of climate variability and the impact of change. The projects
mainly are based in universities. These have been some of the most effective programs using regional
signals from climate variability and looking into climate change. It is an integrated model in terms of
understanding this impact. How can they take that and work with stakeholders, such as water resource
managers, coastal zone managers, and urban planners, to understand the work they are going to do? Her
group has let this develop in each region. They are working with stakeholders to see what they want to
achieve and how the climate information can best be used to help them do this. They are not only creating
useful information, but also usable tools. However, do stakeholders understand the information? Are they
using it, and if so, are they changing behaviors? It is important to evaluate the efficacy. Her group is
trying to bridge the gap between the stakeholders and the scientific community. This is important in
successful projects. It is not useful to overload stakeholders with climate data, but it seems to be what
happens frequently. Better information on regional climate impact is needed. Where is the good regional
information? A big question for stakeholders is what will happen in their region. Will the information
they receive be trustworthy? If so, will they understand the information? It is much more expensive to
build a bridge and have a dialogue with stakeholders than to push data at people, but it is more effective.
This is a learning process.
Mr. Vizzini noted it was frustrating for a novice to try to find information on topics of Sustainability. How
can the agencies facilitate access to information and create dialog between researchers? The lack of
access seems so inefficient, given all of the research that is being conducted. Any movement along that
line by the federal government or universities would be very helpful.
Mr. Pugh responded that with energy technologies, there is definitely a private-sector role. Agencies have
to focus on policies that move to the private sector to take the action to achieve their goals. It is very
frustrating to be in a position where the potential technologies are evident, but they are not getting into the
marketplace. Policymakers have to make the right decisions. He expressed even more appreciation for
economics as the driver of all of this than he had when he worked in the private sector. The quality of the
discussions has been much better over the past year. A lot of good information is out there, and a lot of
good research from the private sector is available at http://www.climatechange.com.
Dr. Bauer noted that if the United States has to change its energy portfolio in a large way, this may lead to
some unintended consequences. How can these issues be addressed?
Ms. Hunt responded that we must do as much research as possible to understand the impact of various
technologies. Biofuels are negative from her standpoint, because though they produce less carbon, they
produce more carcinogens. There is a real need to investigate the various technologies as deeply as
possible. However, there is much pressure now to make decisions a lot faster. Dr. Bauer responded that
not changing the course society is on also is a decision.
Mr. Pugh noted that research and development into impact goes through one model and land-use feedback
goes through another. Both of these models focus on carbon now.
Mr. Ritter stated that regarding the question of models, there is a lot of variability. His group already has a
hard time using a four-step modeling process to figure out how many vehicles will be using a certain
roadway they might be considering in 20 years. If climate change facts are added to that, and the source
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 17
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
of energy the vehicles will be using also is a consideration, he does not believe DOT has the technology
to begin to answer that question.
Dr. Vogel expressed uncertainty about how often decision trees were used. They are one of many decision
tools, but are particularly easy for people to understand because they are graphical, they integrate
uncertainty, impact, and science, and allow researchers to look at many alternatives and evaluate the
broad context of the variables of decision-making for climate change. Are these tools something that EPA
is considering?
Ms. Hunt responded that in the air program it is always a challenge to understand the model. They are
using more complex models. States have to implement the plans.
Ms. Campbell mentioned that governors and urban planners had done a network analysis in the Southwest
looking at water resources. This is one of the few groups looking at decision-making in an integrated way.
Regarding the concept of resilience, if there is an increased capacity for variability, there will be more
resilience. For example, when building a sewage treatment plant, making it possible to adjust the location
of the outlet will make it more resilient.
Mr. Pugh explained that the way government funding works does not accommodate the flexibility that
decision trees provide. There are fixed budget cycles, and the way the budget is reviewed is to allocate
certain amounts of money in certain areas. For researchers to reallocate their budget based on a new piece
of information is very difficult. The Office of Management and Budget must be convinced, it must be
taken to Capitol Hill for approval, and so on. That nimble approach is not easy to get, but it is very
important to try to build in the ability to plan under uncertainty, because that is what all researchers are
doing. The curve for damages has a long tail towards the higher impact side, and when planning for
uncertainty, researchers must take into account extreme events. There is a high chance that outcomes will
be more severe than mild.
Mr. Ritter noted that it would seem that this would be true in transportation but it does not happen that
way. Elected officials do not want to turn the decisions over to stakeholders, but want to be able to use
their influence to change outcomes.
Dr. Vander Velde found it interesting that the DOT was looking at a 20-year horizon in terms of planning
for new roads, but the known petroleum reserves will be gone in 43 years with current consumption rates.
The timeframes are short.
Mr. Pugh agreed. People will find more oil shale, for example, but it will become more and more
expensive to get and will have more and more of an impact on the environment. The transportation
infrastructure will have to change. People will not change until that happens. Higher prices will make
other technologies more competitive. As a society, we will have to keep some technology approaches off
limits, and that will be very hard to do.
Ms. Pulsipher asked if there had been modeling on the local level of transportation if people lived closer
to work and school. Dr. Vander Velde said there is some modeling, but it is in a genesis state. It does not
look just at the energy efficiency of a building, but the transportation footprint of a building.
Dr. Bauer said that one 2006 CNS grantee at the program did a project on accessibility indicators, trying
to create an overall model for some geographic regions.
Mr. Ritter agreed that there is starting to be a serious discussion on this in the transportation community.
The National Academy of Sciences published a report, and one of the conclusions is that researchers need
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 18
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
models. The current models are incapable of handling some situations. For instance, they are not designed
to address the effect of adding a toll to a road.
Ms. Sergeant mentioned that no one was saying much about conservation, but instead were talking about
alternative energy sources and finding new technologies.
Mr. Pugh explained that what will drive this problem in the future is not just the United States, but
developing countries. These countries have much lower per capita energy consumption now than the
United States, even though they are rising at a rapid rate. A conservation message in the United States,
though not politically popular, is warranted, but it would not be well-received internationally. It would be
taken as the United States asking other countries to hold back their development. The goal would be to
get them to develop in a less intense way than the United States did, but they are developing in a more
intense way. China is learning the pollution lesson the United States learned decades ago. Pollution will
probably create action long before climate change in a global arena.
Ms. Sergeant asked why the conservation message is not heard more often in the United States. Ms. Hunt
responded that they can disseminate the information, but they have to show the public that conservation
works. In Atlanta, for example, agencies can tell people not to drive their cars, but they will still drive
their cars because it is part of the culture.
Ms. Sergeant noted that information is not enough, alternatives to driving have to be offered. Mr. Ritter
answered that this has not worked. For a long time, DOT talked about conservation, and there has not
been a lot of response. This does not mean the agency should give up as things change and become more
economical. He believes conservation has to be part of the solution.
Dr. Gregory agreed that conservation is an old message, and it is not working. Per capita consumption has
increased, not decreased, since the first Earth Day. The discipline of the market has not worked.
Mr. Vizzini noted that building codes no longer have a strong basis in energy conservation. Building
codes in the 1970s did not allow the 10- and 12-foot ceilings being built in new homes. Those will be
very expensive to heat in a few years. He agreed that a combination of land-use planning and regulation
as well as economics must be used. However, buses running to Portland are very full, and are going to get
more so. The cost of fuel is having an effect as well.
Dr. Vogel explained that it has to become common knowledge that good environmental decisions also are
good economic decisions and vice versa. People need to understand the economic value. For instance,
front-loading washing machines save a lot of money and also save water.
Mr. Pugh added that economics works in many respects, but in others it does not. Driving Hummers has
allure despite the expense. Status symbols are powerful. Economics is one tool, but it has to be combined
with regulations and incentives.
Dr. Anderson stated that it sounds like one of the strategies is to forget about the United States because it
is too late to affect change here, but that we should try to influence China and other developing countries
before they make the same mistakes.
Mr. Pugh explained that the European approach did try to affect other countries. With the concept of
clean development, Europeans are buying projects in the developing world. Any sustainability action that
the United States takes that is not international will be meaningless.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 19
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Dr. Vander Velde agreed that the message of conservation should not be abandoned, as his agency did a
great deal of it.
One participant noted that consumers use efficiency as a rationalization to buy bigger cars. Mr. Pugh said
that Americans are driving cars with engines that are more efficient than they used to be, but they are
pulling more weight.
Ms. Pulsipher asked if the fast food industry should consider using china instead of disposable containers,
which end up as waste in the environment, or if that would be detrimental to the water supply. Ms.
Sergeant answered that when there was a severe water shortage in Charlottesville, Virginia, people were
encouraged to use paper plates and plastic utensils, and drinking fountains were not turned on in schools.
It depends on the severity of the water problem. She feared there would be china on the side of the road
instead of paper trash if fast food restaurants started using it.
Dr. Vogel stated that the fast food trash issue is much bigger than just a water problem. To answer that
question, a cradle-to-grave analysis of the scenarios would be necessary to make the right decision.
CMS PROJECT PRESENTATIONS
Using Market Forces for Sustainable Stormwater Management
Dan Vizzini, City of Portland
Mr. Vizzini explained that Portland, Oregon, has multiple Stormwater management systems, and there is a
financial reliance on utility rates to maintain them. The utility investments and rates are driven by the
city's response to environmental regulations. However, the financial burden of street system drainage
costs has been shifted to Stormwater rate payers. There are planned strategies to maintain CSO controls
from 2011 through 2040, but the challenge will be dealing with the additional 2.2 billion gallons of runoff
caused by the increase in population density by 2040.
Mr. Vizzini's project consists of a phased approach to sustainable Stormwater management analysis.
Phase one, the feasibility decision, was completed in July 2007. Phase two involves building a Stormwater
credit trading system, and phase three will be the demonstration of system feasibility in the marketplace.
There appears to be an adequate supply (sellers) for a Stormwater marketplace. There may be sufficient
relative price differences to consider credit trades and auctions at the BMP level for selected comparisons,
and across a portfolio of BMPs. Refined inputs and sensitivity analyses are needed. There are substantial
opportunities to develop and deploy market mechanisms to animate demand (buyers), including
heightened regulations and the effective use of city investments.
The costs of implementing a credit trading system may exceed the potential benefits unless the city can
find partners to share the legal, administrative, and technical burden. Evaluation and decision-making
tools hold great promise as aids to planning, program development, and decision-making.
Additional work is needed to: refine BMP cost and effectiveness information; develop values for
ecosystem service effectiveness; integrate the tool with systems modeling and asset management efforts;
expand the tool to allow for site-specific and watershed-specific analysis; and use the tool to make
effective marketing and investment decisions.
Portland currently has a market-oriented initiative for developers who receive a square foot of floor area
bonus for each square foot of roof garden. The bonus has produced an estimated $225 million in
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 20
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
additional private development at 11 participating sites. In another financial incentive program,
discounted utility charges apply to the onsite portion of stormwater bills. This discount is calculated based
on the extent and effectiveness of private facilities in controlling flow rate, pollution, and disposal.
Similarly, the downspout disconnection program targets homes and small businesses in combined sewer
areas on the east side of the Willamette River. Property owners receive $53 per disconnected downspout.
These financial incentives create motivation independent of regulation for citizens to take action to
promote sustainability. Dispersed, small-scale facilities increase the resiliency of the overall system.
Markets increase the likelihood of sustainable investments by providing easy access to research, technical
assistance, financing, incentives, supply chains, and maintenance services.
Mr. Vizzini's research found that public understanding of sustainability is increasing, but public
understanding of the role of markets needs to increase. Social networks and marketing strategies can play
a critical role, but institutional inertia is the most significant obstacle to this and any paradigm shift. His
project now is moving from internal deliberations to a community conversation. New initiatives will
target the green economy, sustainability professionals, and the supply chain of goods and services to serve
individuals and communities.
Agency help in organizing collaborative research and development programs on the following would be
of great benefit to his project: methods and models for monitoring the effectiveness of sustainable
stormwater facilities; subjective and objective values for ecosystem services; configurable software to
operate credit trading registries; and integration of local, regional, national, and international
marketplaces for ecosystem credit trading.
Discussion
Dr. Vogel noted that it is inspirational for someone coming from the Northeast to see the progress in
integrated stormwater management in Portland. His group had an EPA grant that just ended that allowed
his group to create a spreadsheet model evaluation tool on BMP effectiveness. It does not consider
location but it does consider land use and soil types. He added that it would have been beneficial to hear
about Mr. Vizzini's project 3 years ago.
Mr. Vizzini stated that the accumulated belief in the system is that facilities such as a properly designed
rain garden or even curb plantings have other ecosystem benefits such as habitat benefits. The general
belief is that the more green a facility becomes, the better. However, he does not know if his organization
has accumulated all of the costs properly, and enforcement monitoring still has to be added.
Dr. Schwartz observed that it seems in all the trading systems that the key question is how to define the
commodity. Units are annual volume per year, not just stormwater, because combined sewer overflows
and their effects are what need to be controlled. These will vary spatially and temporally, and to get the
market to work the commodity must be defined correctly. The thinking moving forward from the
planning level should be on the annual volume per year.
Mr. Vizzini responded that this volume is at an aggregate level. In the next version of the project, the
team hopes to focus on a parcel or some subset of the city. Combined sewer analysis performed on a
property must take into account the amount of impervious area and the fate of water all the way to the
river, which requires a very detailed model that must be fully integrated. At that point the group also can
look at basement flooding, because individual properties have to get the water off the system or
basements will flood. Some properties will be worth more in terms of incentives for stormwater removal
than others based on system modeling that his group has completed. The pricing of the commodity is
really the issue. Now it is based on annual volume, but this should be based on peak flow.
Th e Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 11
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Ecological Sustainibility in Rapidly Urbanizing Watersheds: Evaluating Strategies
Designed To Mitigate Impacts on Stream Ecosystems
Laura Craig, University of Maryland, and Keith Van Ness, Montgomery County
Department of Environmental Protection
Ms. Craig and Mr. Van Ness focused their work on the benefit of mitigating impacts before and during
development, and sought to answer these questions in their research: When compared to pre-2000
stormwater management strategies, are post-2000 strategies better at mitigating the effects of urbanization
on stream ecosystems? How does watershed development affect receiving streams?
They studied one pre-2000 control watershed, one forested watershed, and three post-2000 watersheds. In
the Clarksburg development area, they attempted to test areas using USGS stream gauges and rain
gauges. The goals of their research were to document ecosystem response and recovery to long-term and
significant landscape changes, and to document the effectiveness of sediment and erosion control and
stormwater management (SWM) BMPs. This would allow them to provide feedback to decision makers
regarding development and SWM design.
The researchers encountered some unexpected issues while conducting this project. Conversion of
sediment control to SWM has been slower than expected, because there was a building moratorium
imposed on the study area, and conversion can only occur when 100 percent of the drainage area is
controlled. The speed of development, due to the slump in the housing market, has slowed over the course
of the study. Additionally, the effects of their work were masked by larger local effects, such as loss of
natural drainage patterns and the influence of local geology.
They found that: sediment and erosion control devices were, at best, 86 percent efficient; development
results in changes to in-stream habitat; and the construction phase of new developments profoundly
changes the benthic macroinvertebrate community composition. Mr. Van Ness noted that recovery at
these sites would not be complete regardless of the SWM strategies used.
In-stream NO3 uptake cannot be detected in the Clarksburg study watersheds. Nutrient concentrations do
not change with distance downstream. The researchers could not measure the NO3 uptake because the
streams are nitrogen-saturated, and nitrification is producing NO3 (masking the effects of removal).
CNS funding was beneficial because the creation of the Clarksburg Integrated Ecological Study
Partnership has increased contacts with potential collaborators. In addition, the grant has provided a level
of legitimacy to the county's efforts to understand the effects of land-use change on receiving streams.
Discussions with other grantees at last year's meeting provided insight regarding data and inspired
follow-up experiments. The project also motivated the upgrade of the USGS gauge at their urban site to
one with real-time monitoring, allowing for public access.
The researchers' future work will focus on continued monitoring to gain a long-term understanding of the
effects of land-use change and SWM on geomorphological and ecological metrics as funding allows.
Discussion
Dr. Gregory asked whether the researchers had tested the phosphorus in the stream. Ms. Craig responded
that she had done 12 6-hour phosphorus injections, but did not have the results yet.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 22
-------
U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Final Workshop for 2004 Grantees
Dr. Anderson wondered whether Mr. Van Ness' assertion that the area would not recover had to do with
the fact that their project studied an already stressed system (e.g., a stream that was already nitrogen-
saturated).
Ms. Craig responded that the nitrogen had been there all along and there was not a change in the
composition of invertebrates in the control system, so she believes the nitrogen-saturation is a separate
issue. Mr. Van Ness added that the issue was where the development was located. In the study case,
development was close to headwater streams, which are very sensitive. This should be part of the
dialogue for everyone considering development in watershed areas: what densities should be located near
the best headwater streams? He had conducted another study on an area with an 8 percent pervious cap,
and this area did see a recovery back to preconstruction levels. There must be an impervious cap on
development.
Mr. Vizzini noted that it seems like it is better to pay more attention during the construction phase, not
just to where the development is placed, but to the management technique during construction. Right
now, developers are only taking stop-gap measures.
Mr. Van Ness responded that not just engineering, but many different variables, such as cut and fill
sediment and erosion control, must be taken into account. In terms of drainage, this may work well during
the rough construction phase because the ground is filtering larger particles. However, what will happen
when the land is fine-graded and lots have been paved and compacted? The drainage will not be adequate.
Dr. Gregory said that the Oregon DEQ uses a modeling program to determine the source of degradation,
for instance, whether sediment, flow magnitude, or habitat degradation was causing the problem.
Mr. Van Ness agreed that it was an important determination to make.
Ms. Nurse thanked the participants for attending, and gave special thanks to Dr. Bauer for her guidance
on the CNS program. She congratulated grantees on the high quality of their work, and adjourned the
meeting at 1:00 p.m.
The Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Research 23
------- |