Greetings! 

 

Hello there!  

 

The Summer 2012 issue of Runoff Rundown is here! This summer has brought some brought some warm days and a new weather pattern I just learned about called a "derecho" - a widespread straight-line windstorm accompanied by thunderstorms - to the east coast. Power was out for a good part of the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area, but it was also a time to play in the water. To celebrate the dog days of summer, we invite you to post and share some of your favorite summer water photos on our Facebook page.

 

As always, if you have suggestions for future content, or would like to contribute to Runoff Rundown, email us.

 

Click here to view this newsletter on the web.

Back in the early 1990s, my friend, "M," who was a local pioneer in the sustainability movement, instructed me that the words "ecology" and "economy" have the same root from Ancient Greek: ecos or oikos, meaning "house" or "household." The implication, of course, is that the ecology and economy of a place are two, co-dependent facets of the whole. While this is a satisfying linguistic twist, in the real world of watershed and stormwater management, we are often wrestling with this integration. If the ecology of our watersheds needs to be healthier, who in the economy should pay to make this happen?

 

I was recently talking with my friend, "K," a university economics professor, about the efficiency, or lack thereof, of trying to exact stringent pollutant load reductions from urban areas through MS4 permits. In K's thinking, it would be much more efficient to get most of these reductions from farms or rural areas (presumably within the same watershed), where the cost per pound reduced is much less. I can certainly see the wisdom of K's thinking on this. It represents the basic economic theory of comparative advantage. If farms can reduce pollutant loads at a lower marginal cost and with fewer opportunity costs than towns, then isn't that the most elegant solution?

 

I posed a similar question to my friend, "C," who is a water resources manager in a dense, fairly built-out urban/suburban MS4 community. We were driving around sniffing out stormwater retrofit opportunities, attempting with some difficulty to exact some modicum of stormwater treatment from a landscape that does not give of itself generously for this type of effort. Poking around street rights-of-way and parking lots, I asked C: "If given the opportunity, wouldn't it make more sense for your community to pay farmers out in the country to implement pollutant reduction projects?"   

 

C's response surprised me. She explained that, even if the pollutant trading scenario were an option, the citizens in her community would want the local government to take actions to make sure their own streams were as clean and healthy as possible. As if on cue, a passing motorist saw the County vehicle parked along the road shoulder and pulled over to chat with C about a recent stakeholder meeting and ongoing watershed protection efforts. Wow. . .people pulling over at random to engage local government staff on water issues. . .I was impressed.

 

There you have it: K's argument suggests that farmers may enjoy a comparative advantage in reducing pollutant loads at the broader watershed scale. Nevertheless, C has the constituency (not to mention the permit requirement) to pursue clean water initiatives within the more challenging urban context.

 

Of course, most practitioners in our field would claim that everyone - farmers, townsfolk, industries, wastewater dischargers, and others -- must do their share. We will never get to our clean water goals without all parties doing some of the lifting.

 

I tend to agree with that sentiment, but the question still remains of how to allocate this responsibility among the parties, and doesn't cost efficiency HAVE to play a role in an age of limited and shrinking budgets. We also have the issue that everyone is not really EVERYONE. For instance, among the townsfolk, we have MS4s who have increasingly stringent permit requirements and, in some cases, wasteload allocations through TMDLs, and non-MS4s, who are either remaining very quiet or waiting for the other shoe to drop, but not doing very much actual lifting as a general rule.

 

When we think about allocating responsibility for pollutant reductions, I think the principle that everyone would adhere to is fairness. I experience the fairness debate every day among my teenagers concerning earth-shattering issues such as screen time, control of iPods, and whose turn it is to have a sleepover. Apparently, the sensibility that things should be "fair" runs deep in the human psyche.

 

During my tenure as a local government water manager, there seemed to be a perennial tension between farmers and developers about who: (1) created the mess in the first place, and (2) should pay to clean it up (sounds like my teenagers again!). Among most of these folks, the issue wasn't that they didn't want to do anything or take responsibility for their fair proportion of the effort - it was that they didn't want their particular group to get too far out in front of the others. It was like the reverse of that children's game, "red light, green light," where the person who was "it" turned his or her back while everyone else sprinted forward as far as possible before "it" turned back around. With watershed stakeholders, the objective of the game is to NOT get too far ahead of the other players.

 

I'd have to conclude by saying that the trading scenario certainly shows some promise on the fairness front. If farmers (and/or other non-urban entities) enjoy a comparative advantage for pollutant reduction efforts, doesn't it make sense to create a market where they can be compensated for their efforts by those for whom pollutant reduction is more costly and difficult. I'd also maintain that this type of trading scenario is far from the full solution - that fairness dictates that all parties do their share to achieve clean water objectives on the home front and within the larger watershed. After all, the farmers have to take care of their own pollutant loads (sometimes called the "baseline") before being eligible to offer credits to the townsfolk.

 

Therefore, the real issue is knowing where to draw the line - when do we know when the town has done enough and is free to trade the rest of its obligation to the farm, and when the farm has done enough to be able to accept the offer?

 

I'd love to get M, K, and C together over some beers and maybe we could come up with the answer. What's your answer? Email us at rambler@cwp.org to let us know your thoughts.

More on Green Infrastructure  

By Katrina Harrison, Watershed Membership Assistant 

   

The Center for Watershed Protection (Center) is continuously researching and implementing projects on upcoming and new topics in the scientific community. One of these topics that have been generating interest is Green Infrastructure. Green Infrastructure (GI) uses environmentally friendly techniques to help naturally manage stormwater and improve water quality over a section of land. Currently the Center is working on several projects related to GI. There are still several questions to be answered involving GI which includes the general guidelines to site assessment and construction, along with the cost comparison of GI to other practices. By completing a variety of projects related to GI, the Center is hoping to grasp a better concept for GI that the stormwater community will be able to share. This article will briefly describe the different projects that the Center has been working on in order to increase our knowledge of GI.

 

One of these projects includes Arlington County Retrofit Assessments. Arlington County, Virginia is in the process of retrofitting and assessing retrofit opportunities for streets, hotspots, and public and private properties in order to determine the feasibility of GI throughout the county.  Arlington County has a goal to retrofit 30% of their county with various stormwater retrofits. This project will help the county to understand if this goal can be met. Some of the GI and BMPs (Best Management Practices) that were proposed included street bioretention areas, rain gardens, grass swales, downspout disconnections, stormwater planter boxes, and permeable pavement.  The proposed practices then scored and prioritized based on nine different screening factors.  Some of these factors include potential phosphorous and nitrogen removal, potential utility or site constraints, and impervious area acreage.  

 

Stormwater education and public involvement were also critical to this project.  As the Center began work on each watershed (or group of watersheds) a public stakeholder meeting was held to teach the residents of the watershed about the nature of the project, and stormwater management in general.  Then, the public's input was sought for identification of potential retrofit locations and other issues in their watershed.  A second public stakeholder meeting was held at the completion of each watershed assessment to present the results of the Center's work.  In all, ten public stakeholder meetings were held.  More technical trainings were also conducted for Arlington County's staff engineers to improve their stormwater retrofit design capabilities, and discuss issues that come up when implementing the Center's proposed retrofits.   

 

Another GI related project that the Center is working on is with Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson (JMT). For this project, the Center is a sub-contractor helping JMT write specifications for stormwater BMPs and Green Infrastructure.  For several of the BMPs, the specifications will include standard details, narrative sections describing sizing, materials, construction sequence, etc., and a spreadsheet design tool.

 

The Montgomery County RainScapes Project takes on homeowners as the primary audience to develop a program where they can implement GI projects through cost share and technical assistance. RainScapes is a program that promotes and implements GI projects on residential, institutional, and commercial properties to reduce stormwater pollution (Department of Environmental Protection). Montgomery County, Maryland consists of high density condos, townhouses, and family homes. The Center is involved in the neighborhood assessment to identify green residential properties that have characteristics where RainScapes can implement GI to reduce stormwater runoff. There are public meetings in Montgomery County to gain public interest in the implementation of GI. This project has just completed the pre-implementation phase and is currently in the calibration phase. The Center is hoping to see several GI projects created throughout the Montgomery County residential areas.

 

Another aspect of GI that is being researched is the affects that GI has on combined sewer overflows. The City of Lynchburg, Virginia Department of Water Resources Project is investigating sites to explore how GI projects could help reduce combined sewer overflows (CSO) and become a part of the Long Term Control Plan. The investigation was also completed to find which types of GI practices are applicable to the CSO part of the city. Over fourty candidate GI projects were identified after a desktop assessment and field investigation. The types of GI projects that are being proposed for the City of Lynchburg are bioretentions, street or right-of-way bioretention, impervious disconnection, dry swales, rain gardens, permeable pavement, disconnection with check dams/ soil amendments, and stormwater wetland basin. The estimated value for the combined storage volume of the identified projects was 64,500 cubic feet. This estimate was based on the identified projects that can be used as input for the modeling efforts involving peak flow and volume (Draft Report for the City of Lynchburg).

 

After completion of these projects, a better understanding of how to outline general guidelines in implementing and investigating GI, along with construction and the initial site assessment for GI will begin to be formed. This knowledge will help all environmental practitioners to implement the same techniques throughout the country.  

 

References Cited:

Department of Environmental Protection. "RainScapes Program." Montgomery County Maryland. Montgomery County Government, 2002. Web. 27 June 2012.

 

Draft Report for City of Lynchburg, Unpublished.

"Safe Drain - SPCC Compliant Storm Drain Technology." Stormwater BMP. Safe Drain, n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. 

The Virginia Chapter of the Association of Stormwater and Watershed Professionals (AWSPs) met in Chantilly, VA at the offices of William H. Gordon Associates, Inc. for the Center's webcast on "Stream Restoration: Implementation You Can Take to the Bank". The local chapter meeting was part of AWSPs' 'lunch and learn' where members meet to discuss watershed and stormwater issues; a benefit of membership. Webcast presenters, Richard Starr from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Will Harman from Stream Mechanics, Inc. were available after the webcast for an informal Q&A session. Members were keen to learn to more about the challenges presented in urban stream restoration and how the streams function pyramid framework would apply. A clear message from this discussion and the webcast was the need for continued monitoring to further understand the response of streams to restoration efforts - what can be achieved from urban restoration (aka 'functional lift' in the pyramid) and how to evaluate and document project progress.

 

The webcast and pursuant discussion was followed by a presentation by Roger  Stewart from the Virginia  

Figure 1. Hach© real-time sampling equipment. (photo courtesy of Roger Stewart)

Department of Environmental Quality on "Real Time Water Quality Monitoring in Flatlick Branch". The presentation illustrated the results of a demonstration project conducted over the last two years where new equipment was being tested for real time nutrient monitoring on an urban stream in Fairfax County. Although new to real-time in-stream water quality monitoring, the equipment provided by Hach Corporation through their Homeland Security Technologies is used to identify threats to water supplies in the United States. The benefits of 'real-time' data collection for nutrients would allow increased accuracy of pollutants loadings and can be evaluated on daily, seasonal and annual basis. The higher temporal frequency of data collection would also assist with watershed implementation planning and have applications to help identify pollutant sources, BMP effectiveness and design (although not part of this demonstration project). Data was generated for: conductivity, nitrate, nitrite, dissolved oxygen, ortho-phosphate, turbidity, pH and temperature. Although the results from the demonstration project were limited in time, the data suggest that the higher resolution of data collection can better inform regulatory decisions than traditional monitoring approaches.

 

For more information about the Local VA Chapter of AWSPs contact: David Powers

For more information about the VA DEQ demonstration project contact: Roger Stewart

The Center "Rolls Out" Some West Virginia Stormwater Projects

By Dave Hirschman, Program Director

 

Some have said that if you rolled the state of West Virginia out flat, it would be larger than Texas. Although not ambitious enough to attempt that feat, the Center for Watershed Protection (Center) has been working with the State's Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) to roll out some intriguing stormwater initiatives. Designing and constructing stormwater BMPs is not difficult for all areas of West Virginia, but they certainly do have their share of challenging terrains and circumstances, including steep slopes and mountainsides, valley fills, areas of acid mine drainage and iron leachate, trout streams, and other interesting settings. The State is also blessed with engaged and forward-thinking stormwater professionals at the state and local levels.

 

The Center is currently working with WVDEP on three separate intriguing stormwater projects:

 

1. West Virginia Stormwater Management & Design Guidance Manual

The Center has been working with WVDEP and a stakeholder workgroup to develop the State's first statewide stormwater manual. West Virginia has adopted a very progressive MS4 General Permit that not only contains a performance standard to "reduce" runoff associated with the first 1-inch of rainfall, but also includes "Watershed Protection Elements" that aim to synch up stormwater with site design practices, such as reducing impervious cover, preserving ecologically-sensitive areas, protecting soils, and preventing thermal impacts to streams.

 

The manual, now in draft form, contains practical better site design checklists as well as detailed design specifications for eleven stormwater BMPs. These include some old friends, such as filters, bioretention, and infiltration, and also some relative newcomers, including rainwater harvesting and regenerative stormwater conveyance (which may be an appropriate practice for the state's steeper terrain). The manual also includes a design process, based on the Runoff Reduction Method (currently used for the statewide stormwater program in Virginia and proposed in several other states), that coordinates BMP design elements with assigned performance values for annual volumetric runoff reduction.

 

The manual will be complete by the fall of 2012.

 

2. MS4 Annual Reporting Form

For this project, the Center is working closely with WVDEP and our project partner, Downstream Strategies, based in Morgantown, WV. Some states currently utilize a standardized form for MS4s to submit their annual reports to the state. For this project, we analyzed the good, bad, and ugly aspects of existing forms to try to craft a user-friendly and comprehensive reporting form. This will help streamline and standardize the types of reports WVDEP receives from the state's MS4s, which currently range from 2-pagers to thick 3-ring binders. The reporting form will make the task more straight-forward for both the MS4s and the WVDEP reviewers and inspectors.

 

3. Payment-In-Lieu Guidance

As previously mentioned, the MS4 General Permit standard reduces the volume associated with the first 1-inch of rainfall. The Permit also contains a provision that at least some of that volume reduction can be addressed off-site, either through developer-initiated projects or a municipally-operated payment-in-lieu program. The Center and Downstream Strategies are currently working on guidance that will help MS4s craft their off-site mitigation policies and programs.

 

The guidance will contain practical step-by-step procedures for establishing the program, as well as sections for setting an appropriate payment-in-lieu fee, crediting various BMPs for volume reduction performance, model ordinance language for off-site mitigation, a standard application form, and other tools.

 

As local stormwater programs evolve, this type of off-site mitigation program will become increasingly important to provide flexibility and ensure compliance across the broad range of site development conditions.

 

For more information on these West Virginia projects, contact David Hirschman or Sherry Wilkins from WVDEP. For more information about Downstream Strategies, contact Evan Hansen. 

Trainings and Conferences    

Center Webcast: Get the Dirt on Stormwater  

August 15, 2012, 12-2 Eastern  

Cost: $149; register here  

Recently, stormwater management has become dirty business, meaning that the dirt has a lot to do with the effectiveness of stormwater practices. There have been many innovations in the field of structural soils, soil amendments, and sophisticated soil mixes for bioretention - all for the purpose of enhancing stormwater treatment systems and/or targeting particular pollutants. This webcast will give you the dirt on soil revolution and provide many practical design tips and resources.

AWSPs members save $60 off regular registration - log in and access your discount code  

  

Fourth International Conference on Climate Change Conference 2012

The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

July 12-13, 2012

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.

Participants are invited to submit a proposal for an in-person paper presentation, workshop/interactive session, poster/exhibits session, or a jointly presented colloquium. Parallel sessions are loosely grouped into streams reflecting different perspectives or disciplines. Each stream also has its own talking circle, a forum for focused discussion of issues. For those unable to attend the conference in person, virtual participation is also available.   

AWSPs members save $100 off registration - log in and access your discount code 

Click here for more information about the conference  

Western Pond Turtle Workshop
Watsonsville, California
August 6, 2012

The Elkhorn Slough Coastal Training Program is pleased to announce the 2012 Western Pond Turtle Workshop August 16, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., at the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. The workshop fee is $285. Training consists of classroom lecture and lab with hands-on opportunities with the species. Because our training site does not have easy access to natural populations in the field, this training does not have a field-based training component. Intended audience includes: biological consultants, land managers, researchers, and regulatory agency personnel.

The workshop features experts Drs. David Germano and Galen Rathbun. The instructors present a comprehensive training on the biology and conservation of the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata). The instructors have published reports and papers on the ecology and life history of this species, and their lecture summarizes the knowledge base on the ecology and conservation of the species.

Visit the Coastal Training Program website to register

  

Geomorphic and Ecological Fundamentals for River and Stream Restoration   
Truckee, California
August 6-10, 2012