Adding up the Benefits of Three Integrative Programs for Water Quality and Habitat Restoration

Peter Hill District Dept. of the Environment, Watershed Protection Division

For CEER July 2014

What is restoration in urban area?

No “Pure” habitat restoration due to urban context Biggest impacts: Altered hydrology, fragmentation,

human/wildlife interface, political will to deal with tough issues Restoration can engage local residents for better or worse Planning and implementation requires constant weighing of:

Feasibility Benefit relative to cost/time Ability to be maintained/sustained Community and political support Ability to achieve WQ targets Ability to meet funding timelines

1861 1861 1888

What is restoration in urban area?

Human factor can lead to major game changers! Paradigm shifts possible with political will! Bag bill – massive reduction in trash Styrofoam – no more in dc! New regs can redefine what development is an what the

impacts are (ie…green roofs, sustainable site design, Green Area Ratio –

Voluntary public actions can be substantial with right incentive programs

What are the strengths/liabilities of these drivers?

Driver Regulatory strength

Connection to public

Ability to meet stated goals

TMDLs via: LOCAL: ms4 permits, LOCAL trib TMDLs Regional bay TMDL

Strong Low Untested – has not been seen in other urban areas to date

Political/community interest (ie. DC Sustainability Plan)

Weak Med-High Many goals – some much easier than others (Bike/WQ)

Mitigation ops Strong Low Goals are usually quantitative #s for restoration

What is restoration in urban area?

Most of the drivers related to water quality goals and stormwater Good b/c many of the impacts are due to uncontrolled SW! Means that projects/programs must meet WQ litmus test Has led to claims that goals are too narrow

What is restoration in urban area?

Rectifying human impacts

Fragmentation/ poor development

Invasive species

Illegal behavior (illicit discharges, sediment discharge, etc..)

Altered hyrdrology and associated stormwater pollution

Zoning regs

Regulations to prevent sales and removal

efforts

Inspection and enforcement

CWA and TMDLs

$ $ $ $

regulations

resources

Human behavior

$

Who is tasked?

City planners, local gov’t

Nonprofits Resource agencies, nonprofits, vols.

Inspectors, law enforcement

Environmental Education

The problem

Leading with your trump card…

$ CWA and TMDLs

Stormwater regulations

Homeowner retrofits

Stream restoration

Expanded Zoning regs

Inspection and enforcement Invasive

removal

Programs

Integrated benefits

Invasive removal

Invasive

Where are the resources?

Stormwater utility – tied to projects to address sw pollution

EPA grants (319, CWSRF)– can be used for restoration but require measured WQ improvement in waterbody

Special revenue funds (ie.. Bag Bill) – broader goals but high level of scrutiny – ie..education, restoration, waterbody specific

Competitive grants – generally require TN, TSS, TP redux first and foremost

Annual funding in $M for restoration

0 5 10 15 20

WQ focus solely

WQ and habitat

"Clean up"

Sustainability capitalfunds

SW utilityCWSRFEPA 319 and 117Bag billPrivate grantsCapital

3 select programs/policies of DC

Program/policy

Key stakeholder/affected party

Category Averageannual expenditures

Key challenge

RiverSmart Homes

Homeowner Voluntary SW retrofit

2M 400K staff

Time/voluntary/maintenance/can be difficult to target

Stream restoration/RSC

NPS/DPR landowner

Voluntary stream restoration

1.5M (0-4M/year)

Landowner requirements, permitting!, lack of “authority”

SW retention requirements

Developers Local building regulation

1.6M staff, 2.2-2.5M revenue

Subject to challenges, passive, difficult to target

Benefits and questions Program Can it be targeted? Non WQ benefits Questions regarding

WQ benefits

RiverSmart Homes

To some extent: With the right incentives and significant outreach

Citizen engagement/ great PR/platform for other work

Can sum of small benefits be seen in waterbody? Targeting?

Stream restoration/RSC

Sometimes, with a willing landowner

Stabilizing infrastructure, habitat

Will projects result in delisting of local TMDLs? Are LR estimates accurate?

SW retention requirements

Not at a local scale Brings private sector into the solution – new technologies

At what scale can you see the benefits? Local waterbodies? Ches. Bay scale?

Adding up the downstream benefits For DC’s Ches. Bay WIP – stormwater load reduction

targets are part of the total (TSS: 47.6%, TP: 8%, TN: 5.8%)

Influenced by 1 large sewer plant (Blue Plains)

2025 is the end date (all practices modeled for next 10 yrs)

Projection assumptions for programs

Current rate/slow dev

Aggressive rate Full throttle

Development subject to SW regs (based upon past rate of permit applications)

15M sq ft X 80% retro of exist imp. Surface X 50% conserv. 6M sq ft/year

15M sq ft X 80% retro of exist imp. Surface X 60% conserv. 7.2M sq ft/year

15M sq ft X 80% retro of exist imp. Surface X 70% conserv. 8.4 M sq ft/year

Headwater stream restoration (planning reduction used)

25% of all possible projects implemented in 10yrs

50% of all possible projects implemented in 10yrs

All possible projects implemented in 10 yrs 48,500 ft or 9.2 mi.

RiverSmart Programs (voluntary)

Average of last 4 years X 10 yrs

Current rate X2 X 10 years

Current rate X3 X 10 years

TSS reduct. by program over 10 yr

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000

Headwater stream restoration (all,50%, 25%)

RiverSmart Homes (current rate X3,X2, current)

Redevelopment (High, Mid, Lowest.)

Public ROW retrofits (X2, X1.5,planned)

full throttle

aggressive

current/conservative

TP reduct. by program over 10yrs

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Headwater stream restoration (all,50%, 25%)

RiverSmart Homes (current rate X3,X2, current)

Redevelopment (High, Mid, Lowest.)

Public ROW retrofits (X2, X1.5,planned)

full throttle

aggressive

current/conservative

TN reduct. by program over 10 yrs

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Headwater stream restoration (all,50%, 25%)

RiverSmart Homes (current rateX3, X2, current)

Redevelopment (High, Mid, Lowest.)

Public ROW retrofits (X2, X1.5,planned) full throttle

aggressive

current/conservative

303d Local water quality impairments What are these water quality targets? Which ones?

What results are meaningful to residents and the natural resources?

Waters that support swimming (primary contact)

Waters that support boating (secondary contact)

Benefits to local waterbodies Headwater stream projects have greatest benefit to

local streams (dependent upon parkland/remnant streams)

RiverSmart implementation dependent upon: Housing turnover Ownership Economic sweetspot – “middle income”

Development frequently metro stop oriented and heavy focus on downtown high value areas

What does it all mean?

All Good, All Necessary – all programs part of comprehensive approach

Stronger SW requirements an important backdrop – but benefits more likely to be seen downstream

Targeting -> Local results: effective homeowner programs and stream work CAN LEAD to removal of water quality impairments. Requires doing it the right way.

Targeting is determined by land ownership, home ownership

Long-term monitoring necessary to track impacts. Year to year may vary

Thank you Questions: Peter.hill@dc.gov