|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published by:
|
|
Greetings!
The Spring 2012 issue of Runoff Rundown has sprung! This has been a busy Spring for the Center. We are happy to be celebrating our 20-year anniversary, and are busy planning our first Watershed and Stormwater Conference, which will include an evening gala to celebrate both the past and future of the Center. See the Announcements section in this issue for more on the conference and gala, to be held October 8-10 in Baltimore.
At the end of this month, we welcome Reid Christianson to our staff as a Water Resources Engineer. Reid comes to us from Iowa, where he is working on a PhD in Biosystems Engineering and is also an Extension Program Specialist at Iowa State University.
You can read more about ongoing Center projects and upcoming events in this issue. As always, if you have suggestions for future content, or would like to contribute to Runoff Rundown, email us at center@cwp.org
Click here to view this newsletter on the web. |
| Runoff Ramblings: "Cost-Effective Practices:" the Devil is in the Details
By Karen Cappiella and David Hirschman
With today's tight budgets and increasing environmental regulations, the question on the minds of watershed and stormwater managers is "which management practices will get me the most bang for my buck towards meeting water quality goals?" Cost data is used to develop budgets for MS4 programs, watershed plans and TMDL implementation plans and to set adequate rates for off-site mitigation programs, but must be paired with performance data to guide planning-level decisions on the most cost-effective strategies for TMDLs, watershed plans and other water quality programs.
Cost-effectiveness (e.g., annual cost per pound of pollutant removed) is a very useful measure for comparing BMPs under consideration for these types of plans. However, the available cost and performance data and the assumptions behind them are often so variable that a manager could find documentation for whatever cost estimate or proposed strategy they wish to justify. The widely variable costs being reported by states, counties and others in the Chesapeake Bay region for meeting the Bay TMDL load reductions is a good example of this phenomenon. Estimates from the State of Virginia alone have a range of three billion dollars (Virginia Senate Finance Committee, 2011).
The Center recently dug into this issue by partnering with the James River Association on a research study to evaluate the costs and performance of stormwater practices to help Virginia communities develop more cost-effective watershed implementation plan strategies. We started by searching for and reviewing available studies with cost data on stormwater practices, and limited our review to post-2006 sources based on the assumption that older data may reflect higher initial costs of implementing what were then "new" practices such as bioretention and green roofs. Design and installation costs for these types of practices have presumably decreased in recent years since they are now more commonplace. What we found was a bit of surprise. Most of the studies we reviewed relied on much older data and in most cases they pointed back to the same two studies: USEPA (1999) and Brown and Schueler (1997). Why wasn't anyone generating new data?
We encountered many challenges with our cost-effectiveness research. First, cost studies report their data using many different units. For structural practices, this includes cost per impervious acre treated, per acre of drainage area, per square foot of the practice, per cubic foot of runoff treated or other measure. Converting these values so that the costs are reported in the same units as the associated pollutant reductions requires making assumptions about the practice design, drainage area characteristics, or other factor.
Second, studies vary in the types of costs they report. Ideally, they will include the full range of life cycle costs: design, construction, opportunity costs of land and annual operation and maintenance costs for both routine maintenance and occasional repairs. Comparing life-cycle costs allows BMPs that are more expensive on the front end (e.g., structural retrofits) to be evaluated through the same lens as BMPs that are more costly over the long term due to maintenance.
The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) has produced very comprehensive BMP and Whole Life Cost Models in the form of various spreadsheets and BMP worksheets (WERF, 2009). These tools appear to be very useful to estimate whole life costs for particular projects or individual BMPs where the project-specific information is known (e.g., drainage area, impervious, practice size). However, we were also looking for cost data or tools that would be relevant for planning level exercises, such as selecting the most cost effective suite of practices for watershed plans, TMDL implementation plans, and MS4 program plans or fee-in-lieu programs.
Only one study we reviewed (King and Hagan, 2011) included the full range of costs associated with installation and long-term maintenance of the practice. We also found that most of the BMP maintenance cost data were based on estimates rather than actual cost data for constructed BMPs. In addition, cost data from different years must all be brought up to the present-day value to reflect changes due to inflation.
By far one of the biggest challenges with a study of BMP cost-effectiveness relates to "alternative" BMPs, where little data are available on costs, effectiveness or both. These include many of the program-based practices (e.g., fertilizer reduction, pet waste pickup) to reduce stormwater pollution as well as relatively recent structural practices for which there is little available data (e.g., regenerative stormwater conveyance systems). Even where cost data are available, it can be a challenge to parse out what expenses constitute "design" versus "installation" versus "O&M" for programmatic practices in order to put them on the same scale as the costs for structural practices.
Although there appears to be a much more robust dataset on BMP effectiveness than costs, the numbers can vary widely for individual BMPs based on design and maintenance factors as well as location or site characteristics. In addition, there are the aforementioned gaps for "alternative" practices. In the context of the Bay TMDL, pollutant reduction credits for BMPs are determined through a scientific review process. Several BMPs are currently under consideration for addition or revisions; however, any changes made through this process will not be reflected in the CBP's models until 2017, while Bay communities must make decisions now about their WIP strategies and funding needs.
The result of all this rambling is to generate a list of our top research needs to develop more reliable, consistent and unbiased data on BMP cost-effectiveness:
- Should we update construction costs based on actual bids and make this available to a wider audience? While this may have to be done on a regional basis, it would help update and supplement existing cost data that may be dated or based on the "old economic times."
- How can we develop more reliable programmatic costs? Are we (and should we be) accounting for the full programmatic costs, such as plan review, administration, maintenance and inspections? These are often left out (or hidden) in the customary cost analysis.
- What are the costs associated with programs to reduce urban stormwater pollution? Of particular interest are programs designed to encourage residents to properly dispose of pet waste, plant trees and reduce the amount of fertilizer applied to urban lawns.These data are important so that programs can compare the cost-effectiveness of these options versus structural BMPs (bang for the buck issue).
- Related to #3, what are the costs associated with removal of illicit discharges? This has emerged as a potential practice to receive credit by the Chesapeake Bay Program, yet the cost of fixing these discharges can be very low cost or very expensive depending on the source of the problem.
- How can we develop better estimates of performance for alternative and/or programmatic practices? This is especially challenging for practices such as removal of illicit discharges and outreach programs to reduce urban stormwater pollution, which present a unique challenge because they hinge on getting people to change their behaviors.
- How can we factor in the full set of benefits associated with these BMPs? This introduces another complicated but important set of factors to consider when selecting BMPs that define them in terms of the economic and social benefits provided to the community.
- How do we account for cost fluctuations due to changing market conditions? For instance, construction bids are more favorable during bad economic times than when the economy is booming.
Of course, this is an ambitious list, and if someone made us king for a day (or year?), we could start in immediately on this research. However, we also know that the answers are out there somewhere in the community of stormwater and watershed practitioners, so let us know what you know.Do you have BMP cost or effectiveness data to share? Email us at rambler@cwp.org.
References
King, D., and P. Hagen. 2011. Costs of Stormwater Management Practices in Maryland Counties. Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Services. Technical Report Series No. TS-626-11 of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
Brown, W. and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Storm Water BMPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA- 821-R-99-012. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Virginia Senate Finance Committee. 2011. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan: What Will it Cost to meet Virginias Goals? Virginia Senate Finance Committee.
Water Environmental Research Federation (WERF). WERF BMP and LID Whole Life Cycle Cost Models (Spreadsheets), Version 2.0. |
Walk Across Virginia: From the Mountains to the Sea
By: Laurel Woodworth
It turns out that even after living in a place for a couple of decades, you can still feel that you have barely scratched the surface. That's how I've been feeling about Virginia lately - how could I know so little about this place I call home? Naturally, there is only one solution to fix that problem: take it in, one step at a time. This spring I will walk across this great state, from its mountains to the sea, in hopes of raising my Virginia IQ.
The best part about this trek is that I will meet up with people like you, people who have worked hard to protect the health of waterways and watersheds. Every few days, I will interview someone who has brought renown to some of Virginia's most pristine rivers or someone who has discovered creative ways of reviving interest in creeks that have been paved over and trashed. There is no lack of either kind of water hero (or waterway) here in Virginia. The diversity and wealth of wisdom in the realm of water resource protection is really what I hope to reap from during this walking survey. I will get to listen to university professors and dam keepers, volunteer water monitors and park supervisors, tribe members and river guides, county planners and farmers - all with stories of success and failure to share.
With the help of many who have suggested people and places to visit, I have cobbled together a 400-mile or so transect that passes from west to east through Virginia's mid-section (a complete cross-state route would probably start in far southwest Virginia and take nearly twice as long, but I have to get back to the Center someday!). It begins at Narrows, Virginia where the New River flows into West Virginia and ends on the Atlantic side of the Eastern Shore. In between, I'll pass over the western ripples of ridge and valley until crossing the Blue Ridge Mountains and descending into the vast Piedmont toward Richmond. From the fall line of the James River in downtown Richmond, I will head slightly northeast into the tidewater, meeting the Chickahominy, the Pamunkey, and the Mattaponi Rivers along the way - coastal plain waters that I imagine have shaped history as much as they have the terrain. My last stop before reaching the Bay is a mysterious place called Dragon Run, one of the most ecologically rich and isolated rivers in the state. Through the kindness of friends with a sailboat, I will cross the Chesapeake Bay, the point of focus of much work here at the Center and certainly for many of you. Finally, I will hop off for one last stretch to walk across Virginia's portion of the Delmarva Peninsula (Eastern Shore), with the hope of reaching one of its barrier islands by boat...and touch the Atlantic.
Someone asked me why walk instead of paddle, if I want to learn about Virginia waterways? Well, as you know, the land tells as much of the story as the water itself. But I am not a purest about the walking thing, so when the opportunity presents itself I will be happy to get off the road and into a boat for a stretch! Friends, family, Center co-workers, and people I have yet to meet will join me for sections of the trip. So that you can follow along too, I and my Center colleagues will keep up a blog of interviews and encounters. The walk starts May 9 and if all goes well, I will see the ocean by the first day of summer. |
|
Understanding Gross Solids and Their Contribution to Urban Watershed Pollutant Loads: an Emerging Issue in the Chesapeake Bay
By Neely L. Law, PhD, Bill Stack, P.E. and Sadie Drescher, Center for Watershed Protection
William Wolinksi, P.E., Talbot County, Department of Public Works
Stormwater managers are frequently challenged in the development of their local Watershed Implementation Plans (or stormwater programs in general) to identify and implement the mix of practices and programs that achieve the greatest pollutant load reduction at the lowest cost and are acceptable to their constituents. This challenge can be addressed in part through cooperative efforts among industry, academia/researchers and local jurisdictions that are willing to study and evaluate alternative practices to improve upon or develop new technologies and practices. Monitoring studies continue to be needed to advance the practice of stormwater management, identify sources of pollution, and decide on the most appropriate and suitable practices to reduce pollutants as well as runoff volumes.
 | | Figure 1. Bag filter installed at outfall. |
The Center is working in partnership with Talbot County and the Town of Easton in Maryland to evaluate the use of bag filters to reduce pollutants entering streams through the capture of gross solids in an urban watershed (Figure 1). Ecosol Net Tech © filters have been installed at four outfalls in the Town of Easton and are being monitored to better understand the contribution of nutrients from gross solids and the cost-effectiveness of using bag filters to capture and remove gross solids from the watershed before they enter the stream. The four study sites represent mixed urban land use drainage areas ranging in area from 38 to 118 acres. The need for this study was driven by notable trash issues, development characteristics, and concerns of nutrient loadings to the Bay from non-point source pollution.
Gross solids are an emerging type of pollutant and include: 1) the "coarse sediment" pollutants from building material, pavement, and the inorganic portion of soils and 2) "urban debris" that is deposited in the upland landscape (e.g., plastic, Styrofoam, metal, glass, etc.). The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE, 2010) defines gross solids based on three categories summarized in Table 1. These materials deposited on impervious surfaces are then carried via the storm drainage network to streams and other downstream waterbodies, degrading its aquatic habitat, causing visual blight, smothering productive sediments and slowly leaching harmful pollutants into the environment.
The type of gross solid people are most familiar with is trash. Trash is a ubiquitous and a long-standing issue affecting the waters of the United States. Currently, there are over fifty trash-based water quality impairments and this number is on the rise. However, gross solids - beyond trash - is a category of pollutant that needs a closer look as nutrients associated with leafy material are overlooked using traditional sampling methods. Studies report that organic material is the largest component of gross solids collected (75 to 97%) with the remaining 3 to 25% as litter In a Tampa, Florida study, the average nitrogen concentration for particles larger than 850 microns was 8,050 mg/kg and 556 mg/kg for phosphorus (see Rushton, 2006 for detailed results). This same study showed levels of PAHs toxic to biota. Although organic material (i.e., detritus) provides the base of the aquatic food chain, the release of soluble nutrients from leaf litter is a concern in urban watersheds. Many urban watersheds are overloaded with nutrients and have a diminished capacity to process nutrients compared to healthy streams in forested areas. Nutrients leached from leaves from their direct dumping into streams, or standing leaf piles on impervious surfaces are a part of this gross solids load that can negatively impact a stream. Research is needed to better define the pollutant loads associated with gross solids, target source areas, and estimate the cost compared to alternatives such as urban retrofit options. Improved gross solids characterization can qualify these programs and practices as effective best management practices (BMPs) that may help to clean-up communities and reduce the Chesapeake Bay's urban nutrient load. 
The Center's study will provide an initial characterization of gross solids using bag filter technology as a best management practice (BMP) in the Tred Avon River watershed. The data generated from the monitoring study will provide initial bounding estimates for gross solids removal from an urban watershed. Our preliminary results are consistent with other studies that find leafy organic material to dominate the material collected, which may have significant implications for nutrient pollution to the Bay given the nutrient concentrations associated with this material. The results will inform future, more comprehensive, monitoring efforts to further evaluate this BMP practice type and define an appropriate pollutant load reduction credit. Monitoring will be completed in May 2012 with a final report in August.
Funding for the Tred Avon River watershed project was provided by The Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays 2010 Trust Fund and The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation.
References
ASCE. 2010. Guidelines for Monitoring Stormwater Gross Solids. ASCE, Reston, VA.
Rushton, B. 2006. Broadway Outfall Stormwater Retrofit Project. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL.
|
Maryland's Forests on the FringeBy Karen Cappiella
Approximately 43% of Maryland is covered by forest, much of which is located near exurban areas. Maryland's population has been rapidly expanding at an average rate of 1% each year, with projected estimates of an additional one million people by 2030 (Maryland Department of Planning, 2006; Maryland Department of Planning, 2002). While the growth rate has been fairly steady, the corresponding consumption of land associated with development has been disproportionately high. The expected population growth and land conversion threatens these "forests on the fringe." To prevent the fragmentation and loss of remaining forests, a more holistic approach that evaluates and manages forest cover at the watershed basis is needed.
The Center for Watershed Protection recently completed a project to apply a planning approach to increase forest cover in a pilot watershed in Frederick County, Maryland. This included estimating current and future forest cover and making initial policy and technical recommendations for the County and other stakeholders to achieve forest cover goals in the pilot watershed.
The first portion of the project was designed to answer the question: what is the typical post-development forest cover on various land uses in Frederick County? The Center conducted a GIS analysis to develop forest cover coefficients specific to Frederick County for eight land use types. Forest cover coefficients represent the proportion of a particular area of land use that is covered by forest and can be used to predict future forest cover under different land use scenarios.
Frederick County contains a mix of agricultural, forested and developed lands. Therefore, one hypothesis tested through this study was that parcels with a greater proportion of forest prior to development would have greater forest cover after development than formerly agricultural parcels. Although the sample size was limited and there was variability in the detail provided by the pre- and post-development land use data sources, the analysis showed that, for most land use types, post-development forest cover was quite low (median values < 5%) regardless of pre-development land use. The analysis showed that the median percentage of current (2005) forest cover best represented the post-development forest cover for low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, commercial, industrial and institutional land use categories (Table 1). For very low density residential and open urban land uses, post-development forest cover can be predicted based on pre-development forest cover using a linear regression equation. The analysis also showed no significant difference in post-development forest cover for sites that were developed prior to implementation of Maryland's Forest Conservation Act, compared to sites developed after implementation of the Act, although, the post-Forest Conservation Act sample size was limited. 
Notes: Y = coefficient for post-development forest cover; X = % predevelopment forest cover. Acres were used as opposed to hectares in the land use category descriptions because that is the unit of measure used by the County. Interquartile range is used as a measure of variance for the LDR, MDR, HDR, COM, IND, and INST land use categories, for which FCCs represent the median of the sample data. It is a measure of statistical dispersion and is defined as the difference between the third and first quartiles. Variance for the VLDR and OPEN land use categories is the standard error of the linear regressions that are used to calculate these FCCs.
The Center used the resulting forest cover coefficients to estimate the potential forest loss likely with future development in the Linganore Creek watershed, a drinking water supply watershed in Frederick County with impairments for phosphorus and sediment. The "leaf-out analysis" method (Cappiella et al. 2005) used to estimate future forest cover assumes that (1) no changes will occur in current zoning, (2) land cover on developed and protected lands will remain the same, and (3) buildable land will be developed according to the County's comprehensive plan.
The results of the Leafout Analysis show that the current (2010) forest cover in the Linganore Creek Watershed is 30.0%. With future buildout of the watershed, 634.8 acres of forest will be cleared, decreasing watershed forest cover to 28.7%. This represents only a 4.4% loss across the watershed, but a 40.8% loss within the County's designated Community Growth Areas. The leaf-out analysis results were used to develop forest cover goals for the Linganore Creek watershed and recommend strategies to achieve these goals. The final goals included:
- A Green Infrastructure Plan in place to target watershed-wide conservation and reforestation based on water quality/habitat goals
- Forest buffers along 75% of the stream network by 2040
- 40% forest cover in the Community Growth Areas by 2040
The study results show that forest loss during development is substantial within the County, despite the existence of state-wide and local forest conservation regulations. However, it is unlikely that recently reforested areas (those planted to comply with the Forest Conservation Act as well as other forestation efforts) would have matured enough to be classified as forest in the 2005 forest cover layer used in deriving the forest cover coefficients. Therefore, the actual post-development forest cover is likely to be higher than what was calculated in this study, although to what extent is uncertain because the County's Forest Conservation Act tracking database is not spatially linked. With these caveats in mind, the resulting forest cover coefficients can be applied in Maryland communities with similar patterns of development, similar topography, and similar land use histories as Frederick County, but may have limited application outside of the state because of variations in forest management regulations.
Click here for guidance for using forest cover coefficients and the leaf-out analysis to estimate future forest cover.
This project was funded by the Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc.
References
Cappiella, K., Schueler, T., and T. Wright. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Part 1: Methods for Increasing Forest Cover in a Watershed. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. Newtown Square, PA. NA-TP-04-05.
Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). 2006. Historical and Projected Total Population for Maryland's Jurisdictions. Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services. http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/popproj/TOTPOP_PROJ06.pdf
Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). 2002. Percent Change in Total Number of Residents for Maryland's Jurisdictions, 1990-2000. Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services. http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/pop_estimate/Estimate_90/pct_chg.pdf |
 AnnouncementsWatershed Science Bulletin: Call for Articles Spring 2013
AWSPs is currently soliciting short articles (5,000 words or less) for the Spring 2013 issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Watershed Science Bulletin. This issues focuses on the use of green infrastructure and its impact on environmental, social and economic aspects of watershed and community health. The goal of this issue is to support national and local efforts to help fill gaps in our knowledge about the performance of green infrastructure at site and landscape-scale applications, approaches taken to implement green infrastructure within a community, its cos-effectiveness, and how green infrastructure, in its many forms, fit into programs to protect and restore watersheds. The deadline for article submissions is Wednesday October 5, 2012
Online Watershed Library The Online Watershed Library (OWL) is a service provided by the Association of Watershed and Stormwater Professionals (AWSPs) that allows practitioners to readily access Center for Watershed Protection and other watershed and stormwater resources to support the development and improvement of local programs. OWL is a searchable, online database of research, stormwater and watershed manuals and plans, assessment tools, and regulatory information. A monthly special feature of "hot topics" highlights innovative and up-and coming information to keep practitioners apprised of the latest stormwater and watershed issues. Users may also submit materials for inclusion in the OWL. OWL was developed to be a time-saver for watershed and stormwater practitioners as it provide users access to a well-organized database of relevant and up-to-date information. Career Center
With its focus on the watershed and stormwater industry, companies and professionals, the AWSPs Career Center offers its members-and the industry at large-an easy-to-use and highly targeted resource for online employment connections. Both members and non-members can use the AWSPs Career Center to reach qualified candidates. Employers can post jobs online, search for qualified candidates based on specific job criteria, and create an online resume agent to email qualified candidates daily. They also benefit from online reporting that provides job activity statistics. For job seekers, the AWSPs Career Center is a free service that provides access to employers and jobs in the watershed and stormwater industry. In addition to posting their resumes, job seekers can browse and view available jobs based on their criteria and save those jobs for later review if they choose. Job seekers can also create a search agent to provide email notifications of jobs that match their criteria. As a registered employer or job seeker you also have access to the Engineering & Science Career Network (ESCN), a growing network of leading engineering and science associations. AWSPS' alliance with the ESCN increases your reach to over 13,000 resumes and over 750 job postings - giving you more control over your career advancement and a one-stop-shop to find targeted and quality candidates. Save 20% off regular job posting price through August 15, 2012 Use Promo Code CCrt20Save |
Trainings
Stream Restoration: Implementation you can take to the BANK
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12-2pm Eastern.
Cost: $149 - (registration open 4/25/12-6/15/12) register here
$139 - (early bird registration open 4/25/12 - 6/1/12) register here
This webcast builds on the 2011 webcast entitled, "Stream Restoration: Between a Rock and a Hard Place" to go one step further and focus on the assessment methods to identify appropriate sites for restoration and the design approach used to meet the restoration goals and objectives. Stream restoration can serve as a major tool for managers to comply with regulations and meet their pollution reduction goals. Several important factors for success will be discussed that include targeting the right restoration site, deciding what assessments to do, determining the appropriate design needed, and carrying out the assessments that can tell us how the restoration did or did not meet the original project goals and objectives. This webcast will host experts in the field to share their experience, data, case studies to highlight common pitfalls and solutions in the stream restoration field, and the most up-to-date stream restoration credit information. National Watershed Quality Monitoring Council's 8th National Monitoring Conference April 30 - May 4, 2012, Portland, OR This national forum provides an exceptional opportunity for federal, state, local, tribal, volunteer, academic, private, and other water stakeholders to exchange information and technology related to water monitoring, assessment, research, protection, restoration, and management, as well as to develop new skills and professional networks. 2012 NGWA Ground Water Summit May 6-10, 2012, Garden Grove, CA Groundwater professionals are facing formidable challenges presented by factors ranging from increasing global population and multiple demands for water to changing climate and unsustainable use of groundwater supplies. These challenges are not amenable to simple solutions using traditional methods. Instead, confronting these challenges will require new scientific understanding, new technologies and innovative application of existing methods, multidisciplinary approaches, and policies founded in sound science. The focus of the 2012 NGWA Ground Water Summit - Innovate and Integrate: Succeeding as a Groundwater Professional in a Water-Short World - will help you prepare for, and thrive in, this environment. This annual comprehensive event also provides unparalleled opportunities for career growth and a forum for perspectives from the research, regulatory, advocacy, and consulting communities. In addition, students and faculty members can take advantage of numerous opportunities to discuss research and explore applications. AWSPs members save 20% off Registration! 23rd Annual Nonpoint Source Pollution ConferenceMay 15-16, 2012, Portsmouth, NH
Since 1990, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), in partnership with its member states, has been coordinating the Annual Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Conference, the premier forum in our region for sharing information and improving communication on NPS pollution issues and projects. The conference brings together all those in New England and New York State involved in NPS pollution management, including participants from state, federal, and municipal governments, private sector, academia, and watershed organizations. Click here for complete Conference information. 2012 Land Grant & Sea Grant National Water Conference
May 20-24, 2012, Portland, OR
This Conference will discuss ideas, identify and update emerging issues.
The 2012 Ohio Stormwater Conference is an annual conference dedicated to advance the knowledge and understanding of comprehensive stormwater management for those dealing in all aspects of planning, design, implementation and regulatory compliance. The 2012 Conference is the 5th Annual Ohio Stormwater Conference and is being held at the SeaGate Convention Center located in Toledo. The conference will provide updates on environmental issues, new technologies, regulatory information and pollution prevention. The 2012 Ohio Stormwater Conference is a great opportunity to strengthen your skills and knowledge in an intensive workshop setting with other colleagues. Click here for complete conference information
This conference is and opportunity to identify practices that facilitate decision making and policy development. The Coastal Zone Canada Association invites you to participate in the 10th edition of the International Coastal Zone Canada Conference on June 9-14, 2012, in Rimouski, Quebec, Canada under the theme "Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Time for action". Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Université du Québec à Rimouski are hosting this major event, which brings together about 300 participants who share a common interest in the major social, economic and environmental issues related to the ocean and coastal zones in Quebec, across Canada and elsewhere in the world. Discussion will focus on mitigation and adaptation to climate change, the use of natural resources, protection of marine and coastal environments, sustainable development, and the management of uses and activities through integrated participatory governance approaches.The main conference will include plenary sessions, themed parallel sessions, special parallel sessions and presentations of scientific posters. Click here for further information about the conference.
Fourth International Conference on Climate Change Conference 2012
July 12-13, 2012, The University of Washington, Seattle, WA
The Climate Change Conference is for any person with an interest in, and concern for, scientific, policy and strategic perspectives in climate change. It will address a range of critically important themes relating to the vexing question of climate change. Plenary speakers will include some of the world's leading thinkers in the fields of climatology and environmental science, as well as numerous paper, workshop and colloquium presentations by researchers and practitioners.
Stormwater Symposium 2012
July 18-20, 2012, Baltimore, MD
The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is pleased to announce the 2012 Stormwater Symposium. The two-day event will be in cooperation with the Chesapeake Water Environment Association (CWEA). Building on a tradition of strong stormwater related education in the mid-Atlantic region, this event will focus on national issues, including the proposed national stormwater rulemaking, regional issues, developing technologies, and management approaches that are key to this growing and evolving topic. This symposium will bring together practitioners, regulators, academics, manufacturers, and visionaries to network and exchange information on the challenges, successes and opportunities related to stormwater.
For further information about sessions and workshops that will take place at the symposium, click here. SWCS Annual Conference: Choosing Conservation: Considering Ecology, Economics, and Ethics July 22-25, 2012, Fort Worth, TX The 67th International Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Conference will be held in Fort Worth, Texas. The conference sessions will explore recent developments in the science and art of natural resource conservation and environmental management on working land. StormCon: The North American Surface Water Quality Conference & Exposition August 19-23, 2012; Denver, CO Stormwater Pollution prevention with Global Reach. |
|
 Cool Links "Cool Links" provides information on some new or new-found resources that are helpful to watershed managers and stormwater professionals
Trees Tame Stormwater Check out this interactive poster from the Arbor Day Foundation . Drag the slider on the poster to fade between a water system with few trees, and one with abundant trees. Then click on the numbers to see the changes that trees make for cities. "Best Management Practices" Online Information Resource Launched to Reduce Pesticide Use & Exposure A user-friendly online information resource is now available to provide guidance to the Chesapeake Bay region on reducing the use of - and exposure to - pesticides that have been linked to harmful effects on the Bay and its tributaries. The website offers advice on how to minimize the negative impacts of pesticides when they are used, as well as recommendations on pesticide alternatives, runoff prevention and organic strategies - for homeowners, commercial and government property managers, faith-based institutions and farmers. The site was developed by the Pesticides and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Project as a user friendly central repository with comprehensive, at-a-glance information on integrated pest management, best management practices and related technologies - applicable to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed - for the residential, commercial and agricultural sectors. |
|
|
Runoff Rundown Team:
Karen Cappiella, Dave Hirschman, Neely Law, Snehal Pulivarti, and Laurel Woodworth
If you have suggestions for future Runoff Rundown content, or would like to contribute an article, contact us at center@cwp.org |
|
|
|
|
