NCERQA ANNUAL REPORT Period covered by this report: October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999 Date of the Report: November 30, 1999 EPA Agreement Number: R82-5759 Title: Risk Based Urban Watershed Management-Integration of Water Quality and Flood Control Objectives Investigators: Primary Investigator Vladimir Novotny, PhD, P.E. Co-investigators: David Clark, PhD, Robert Griffin, PhD Institution: Institute for Urban Environmental Risk Management Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881 Research Category: US EPA/NSF/USDA STAR Watershed Program EPA Project Officer: Barbara M. Levinson Objective of Research: This annual report covers activities of the second year of the project that was awarded to Marquette University on October 1, 1997. The overall research objectives and goals of the project outlined in the proposal are: (1) Develop statistical flow, loading and water quality models applicable to risk assessment; (2) Develop objective and quantitative risk assessment procedures for estimating ecological risks of stormwater and subsurface discharges from urban and suburban watersheds; (3) Develop methodology for assessment of flood control and water quality benefits and resolve conflicts between flood control and ecological preservation-restoration objectives; (4) Develop benefits/cost models for urban watershed management to optimize both flood control and receiving water integrity; (5) Research innovative financing of urban watershed management, identify key players, and assess the willingness to pay for different types of benefits; and
Progress Summary:
Water Quality, Ecological, and Flood Risks to Receiving Waters due to Urban Runoff and Urbanization Water Quality, Ecological, and Flood Control Benefits of Urban Stormwater Management Practices The team has prepared and analysis of the effects of urbanization on the magnitude of high flows and floods (Technical report #4). An analysis of the effect of flood plain on property values was published (Technical report #1) and presented it at the EPA conference on Environmental Problem Solving with Geographical Information Systems: A National Conference, September 22-24, 1999 The socio-economic team and subcontractor conducted and completed focus group research and developed the survey questionnaires on the values and willingness to pay for flood control and ecological restoration of urban receiving waters ( Technical report #5). 2. Work in progress Field work continued on the two pilot watersheds. Oak Creek Oak Creek is a tributary of Lake Michigan and is located in the southern portion of the Milwaukee County. About 22 km of the stream is perennial. The Oak Creek watershed can be characterized as a mostly rural area that is rapidly developing. Agricultural land (cropland and pasture) represents the prevailing type of land use in the watershed. 44.6 % of the watershed is urbanized. The soils within the Oak Creek watershed are silty clay loams, loams, and sandy loams, and are developed on gently sloping or rolling morainal topography. Pollution originates from municipal, industrial, agricultural, landfill, and stormwater diffuse sources. Point sources are negligible. Rural sources dominate among the nonpoint sources. Menomonee River The Menomonee River discharges into the Milwaukee River about 1.4 km upstream from the mouth of the Milwaukee River with Lake Michigan. Population density ranges from less than 135 people/km2 in the upper rural/developing portion of the watershed to about 10,000 people/km2 in the lower urban portion. The average population density is 980 pop./km2. Channel modifications are concentrated in the urban area. The 120 - km river system contains 42% of minor channelization, 22% of major channelization, and 3% of a conduit. Present population residing in the watershed is approaching one million and the watershed is 53 percent urbanized. The remaining 46% of the total area is still in rural uses but is rapidly urbanizing. Construction activities during the transformation from rural to urban are a great source of diffuse pollution (Novotny and Olem, 1997). The soils within the watershed are rolling silt loams or gravelly loams. Most of the natural soils are fertile. Artificial fill materials and paved surfaces are common in the developed urban portions. There are no point sources of pollution in the two investigated watersheds. Socio-economic research Socio-economic team concluded the focus group research and turned its full attention to the full survey of more than 1000 citizens residing in the two pilot watersheds. Research Results Ecological Risk Assessment The habitat quality and physical parameters were evaluated using Habitat Assessment and Physical-chemical Protocol. The scorers at Oak Creek ranged from 45 to 95% of the reference score with majority of scores between 53 and 82%. Only one site has habitat conditions comparable to those of the reference site (>90%) and two sites are classified as supporting (75-90%). The score of the Menomonee River ranged from 40 to 97% of the reference score. Three sites have conditions comparable to those of the reference site. One site was classified as partially supporting (60-75%) and four sites as non-supporting (<60%). Biological monitoring was conducted during Summer of 1999 in cooperation with Wisconsin Lutheran College. An index of biotic integrity (IBI) based on fish species compositions using procedures developed by Lyons (1992). A high percentage of tolerant species and low species diversity indicate poor stream quality. The IBI scores indicate that all investigated locations did not support a fish community typical for this southeast Wisconsin ecoregion. Macroinvertebrates were collected at five sites on Oak Creek and nine sites on the Menomonee River, including two sites in headwaters without significant impairment by urbanization (reference sites). Sampling followed protocols for multi habitats, using a D-frame dip-net. Sampled habitat type included cobble, snags, vegetated banks, submerged macrophytes, sand and other fine sediment. The chemical integrity monitoring program focused on key locations in the Oak Creek and Menomonee River watersheds. The following parameters were monitored: pH, suspended solids, volatile suspended solids, total solids, hardness, COD, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, total phosphorus, total and dissolved heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn), cyanide (winter sampling only), and PAH (sampled twice). Total of 24 water column samples were analyzed. The sampling covered both low and high flow periods with a wide range of flows. Sediment samples were also analyzed. The data on water quality were used to estimate the ecological risk to aquatic biota by selected heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zn) that were identified as most likely to exhibit the highest risks. The risk calculation was made according to the methodology published in Novotny and Witte (1997). The ecological risk is estimated as a joint probability of two probabilistic functions: (i) the probability density function of ambient concentration (pdf), and (ii) the probability that an organism will be a acutely or chronically affected by the exposure to the given concentration (toxic response curve). Ambient concentrations follow a log-normal probability distribution. Table 1 reports the calculated chemical risks by the toxic metals. The
risks (both chronic and acute) from copper calculated for the Menomonee
River are two orders of magnitude higher than those for Oak Creek. The
risks of lead and zinc are about the same for both watersheds.
Table 1 Chemical risk to aquatic biota. Oak Creek and Menomonee River
A risk of E-04 (= 10-4) or greater indicates a possibility that some species can be lost from the system. Flood Risk The flood risk was defined as a probability at any point of the watershed that a flood will occur at any given year. Flood risks were estimated in the GIS Arc View environment. Two basis approaches were considered. The first is a vector-based approach that employed a custom developed Arc View Avenue scripts program. This approach permits estimation of risks only at specific points rather than for a complete area. The second, more general approach, works in a grid (raster) environment and makes use of the Spatial Analysis Extension of Arc View. It permits flood risks to be calculated for the entire watershed, and specified points can be assigned the corresponding value from the underlying polygon. The second approach was selected because of its applicability in watershed management. RELATION OF THE WILLINGNESS TO PAY TO THE RISKS OF FLOODING AND ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE TO THE STREAMS Willingness to pay provides a measure of how much all beneficiaries, not just those living in the flood plain, are willing to spend for flood control and ecological restoration/preservation of urban streams. In the research described herein, a hypothesis was advanced that the willingness to pay parameter could be correlated to the risk of flooding and damage to the ecology. To identify users' (citizens') preferences for flood control and diffuse pollution control/stream restoration actions a two-way survey is being conducted in the two watersheds. The objectives of the surveys are:
Findings of the Focus Groups Objective 1: There is a great variance in people's connection to the river or creek. Some visit the river regularly to enjoy the scenery, walk or bike along the river while others avoid the river because they are too busy, or due to perceptions of pollution or lack of accessibility. Emotionally, some expressed anger at local agencies perceived being responsible for flooding/environmental quality problems. Objective 2: Most participants felt that the health of the river and creek could be improved and that it had worsened over time. Specific concerns were about fertilizer, chemical runoff and trash and debris left behind by people. Several participants were concerned about the effect that communities upstream may have on the health of the river. A handful felt that some positive changes had taken place to improve the environmental quality. The following were seen as indicators of the health of the river or creek: (1) clarity and quality of water; (2) presence of fish; (3) presence of birds and other wildlife; (4) presence and conditions of trees and plants; (5) ability for the water and areas surrounding the river and creek to sustain life; (6) the absence of fertilizers and chemical runoff from farms and homes; and (7) the absence of industrial pollution. Objective 3: Participants from the Menomonee River groups perceived a much greater risk of flooding than respondents from Oak Creek. The Menomonee River has a recent history of urban flooding. Participants were concerned about a wide range of damage, including flooding of yards and basements, roads and streets, sewer backup, well water contamination, the effects of future development and concerns about others living in the floodplain. In general, it was difficult for participants to identify the cause of flooding in their community. Many were unsure whether the flooding they experienced was a result of poor drainage, sewer backing up, heavy rain, or rising water in the river or creek. It was suggested that future research include a set of items that tap into respondents' perception about the cause of flooding - a consideration that is likely to influence the WTP estimate. Objective 4: Oak Creek residents had a hard time providing a WTP dollar amounts because they did not believe the creek was flooding and was not a problem in their community. Interestingly, flood plain residents gave WTP estimates that were lower than the other groups. In fact four out of nine gave zero bids. Some of the reasons for the lower estimate include: (1) the beliefs that current taxes should be covering these projects; (2) the beliefs that past projects did not work; (3) anger at and mistrust of public officials and local agencies. Given existing perceptions of minimal to nonexistent flood risks in the Oak Creek watershed, it was concluded that willingness to pay for reduction of flooding risks will only be evaluated in the Menomonee River watershed. Objective 5: A number of salient behavioral beliefs were considered when subjects were formulating a WTP estimate. These appear to be the beliefs that are likely to be positively correlated to the WTP. The most commonly held beliefs are:
Objective 6: Participants generated a long list of potential information resources, but a majority of respondent said they would turn to governmental sources for information. (This may have been an artifact of the social context of the focus groups, however). Some expressed distrust about the accuracy of information coming from governmental agencies. Many perceived a great difficulty in getting and understanding the information they would need to make a more educated WTP estimate (because of access and interpretability of information). Some felt it was not their responsibility to get information about potential projects. Objective 7: A majority of participants said they would be unlikely to turn to mass media for information. Participants varied greatly on the extent to which they held the following beliefs: Stories with statistics are more believable than those without. Someone's personal experience is more informative than single a news article or reports. In-depth features are more trustworthy. Objective 8: Most participants placed the prevention of floods and the environmental improvement of the river/creek as a medium to high priority for their community in comparison to other community needs such as police, schools, etc. Most participants disagreed with the notion that only those who live in the flood plain should be required to pay the cost of flood control. However, results were much more varied when a similar question implied taxation and the participant possibly having to make a contribution ("Taxpayers have a duty to share in the cost of flood control even though only a minority is affected by floods"). Most participants agreed that we have an obligation to protect nature even if the benefits are only intangible. Establishment of the Institute for Urban Environmental Risk Management The faculty investigators of the team are the core of the new institute established by the university. The university provided adequate office space. The institute has formed an advisory board of leading environmental representatives (EPA, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, City of Milwaukee, Citizens for Better Environment, University of Wisconsin and others) that will guide the institute in establishing its research and funding priorities. The institute is the main organizer of the 5th International Conference on Diffuse Pollution and Watershed Management to be held in Milwaukee in June 2001. The institute has been recognized by the university as a research and education unit of the university responsible for interdisciplinary environmental activities within the university and throughout the community. Establishing the institute that will provide a continuum of environmental research and education is the main social benefit derived from the award of this research project. GIS Laboratory The university provided funds amounting $ 8,000 to establish a GIS laboratory. The funds with other funds derived from the project and from the participating departments enabled to purchase several computes, Arc Info and Arc View software that will be used both in education and research. A new course on the use of GIS systems has been introduced into the university wide curriculum and offered for the first time in the spring semester of 2000. Meeting with Stakeholders On January 28, 2000 the team will present its intermediate results and accomplishment to the local stakeholders. This will be our second stakeholder's meeting. International Cooperation The institute/research team has established a cooperation with scientists in Japan from Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. Ritsumeikan University is the largest private university in Japan. On the invitation of the Japanese scientists the primary investigator visited Japan and presented several lectures on diffuse pollution/ watershed management in urban areas. Scientific exchange programs are now being formulated and first student/faculty exchanges will begin in 2000. Ongoing and Future Activities 1. GIS representation of flood risks This project is developing a GIS methodology for estimation of flood control risks at any point within the watershed. The model will be linked with a hydrological model of flows affected by urbanization. 2. Development of watershed flow and pollutant loading GIS model This task is developing in the GIS environment a model that will provide loadings of flow and pollutants in urban watersheds that would be compatible with the statistical nature of the risks functions. 3. Distribution of flood control damage (benefit of flood control) within the flood plain The flood risks when multiplied by the flood elevation damage estimates (typically available from USGS and FEMA records) in the GIS environment will provide a point by point estimate of flood damage throughout the flood plain. 4. Estimation of benefit cost rations This project is researching the ways by which presently intangible benefits of ecological restoration could be included in the benefit cost ration analyses of urban drainage/restoration projects. 5. Separation of physical and chemical risks and their relation to biotic integrity The team is developing a methodology for ascertaining physical risks to aquatic biota by increased flows and urbanization. The numeric ecological risks represent a probability that a genus will be lost from the water body because of the physical changes to the habitat. 6. Willingness to pay survey This is the largest effort of the socio - economic team. Over 100 citizens in the two pilot watersheds are being surveyed. Publications and Presentations: Refereed Publications and Proceedings: 1. V. Novotny (1999) "Integrating diffuse/nonpoint pollution control and water body restoration into watershed management," Journal AWRA, 35(4):717-727 2. A. Bartošová, D.E. Clark, V. Novotny, K.S. Taylor (1999): "Using GIS to Evaluate the Effects of Flood Risk on Residential Property Values. Proc. Environmental Problem Solving with Geographical Information Systems: A National Conference, U.S. EPA, September 22-24, 1999, Cincinnati, Ohio. Also submitted to Journal of Environmental Management. 3. Griffin, R.J., D. Booth, D. Clark, J. Giese, and V. Novotny (1999) "Public perception of urban river flood risks and ecological quality: Focus group insights," Proc. Society for Risk Analysis Ann. Meeting, Atlanta, GA, December 5-8 4. V. Novotny et al. (2000) "Reconciling Flood and diffuse pollution control objectives in urban watersheds," Proc. 5th International IWA Conference on Diffuse Pollution, Bangkok, Thailand, January 16-20,2000, also to be published in Water Science and Technology Technical Reports: All technical reports are deposited in the Marquette University Science Library from which they can be retrieved by the Interlibrary Loan services and/or downloaded in the pdf format from the team's website. 1. A. Bartosova, D. E. Clark, K.S. Taylor, and V. Novotny (1999) Using GIS to Evaluate the Effects of Flood Risk on Residential Property Values 2. N. O'Reily and V. Novotny (1999) Water Quality, Ecological, and Flood Risks to Receiving Waters due to Urban Runoff and Urbanization 3. N. O'Reily and V. Novotny (1999) Water Quality, Ecological, and Flood Control Benefits of Urban Stormwater Management Practices 4. P. Hajda, A. Bartosova, and V. Novotny (1999) Estimating Effects of Urbanization on the Discharge-Frequency Relationship of the Menomonee River and Oak Creek 5. L. Guzman and J. Stevenson (1999) Menomonee River and Oak Creek Watershed Focus Group Report Supplemental Keywords: Urban economics, Hydrological modeling, Water quality modeling, Urban drainage, Property damages, Probabilistic models, Public opinion, Watershed, Risk assessment, Ecological effects, Chemicals, Toxics, PAHs, Heavy metals, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Restoration, Habitat, Integrated assessment, Decisionmaking, Cost benefit, Contingent valuation, Willingness to pay, Geographical information systems, Great Lakes, EPA Region 5. Relevant Web Site: www.marquette.edu/environment/Research.htm This site contains the documents (technical
reports) prepared by the research teams. Most documents are in the pdf
format and can be read and downloaded by Adobe Acrobat Reader.
 ©2001 Marquette University -- Last Update: April 11, 2001 |
