[Last Updated: March 31, 2007]
|
|
||
Ashwani Vasishth <vasishth@csun.edu>
[N.B.: Articles and reports that are freely available over the internet have been hyperlinked, below. Others may require membership or subscription.]
Abbey Associates. Undated. Stormwater Best Management Practices. <http://www.abbey-associates.com/splash-splash/stormwaterBMP_NEW.htm>
American Forests. Undated. Trees Help Cities Meet Clean Water Regulations. <http://www.americanforests.org/downloads/graytogreen/treeshelpcities.pdf> [Tree cover in urban areas can provide cities with reduced costs for stormwater management and improvement in water quality. American Forests has developed a computer software package to measure the effects of urban tree cover and impervious surfaces on stormwater that will help city managers meet ever tightening water quality regulations. Scientific research and time-tested engineering practices provide the basis for the software calculations.]
AWARE Colorado. 2006. Water Protection Toolkit for Local Officials: Connecting Land Use With Water Quality. Addressing Water and Natural Resource Education, Colorado. <http://www.awarecolorado.org/toolkit.pdf>
Bitter, Susan D. & J. Keith Bowers (Biohabitats, Towson, MD). Undated. Bioretention as a Water Quality Best Management Practice. Technical Note #29 from Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(3): 114-116. <http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Practice/110-Bioretention.pdf> [From the Stormwater Manager's Resource Center web site. ÒTo respond to the need for better stormwater practices in small commercial areas, the Prince GeorgeÕs County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) sponsored a research project to design innovative practices based on the concept of bioretention. Bioretention is an innovative urban stormwater practice that uses native forest ecosystems and landscape processes to enhance stormwater quality. Bioretention areas capture sheet flow from impervious areas and treat the stormwater using a combination of microbial soil processes, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and plants.Ó]
California Dept. of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Caltrans Storm Water Management Program Annual Report. Sacramento: California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis, [2001-2002] CTSW-RT-01-074.
Center for Urban Forestry Research. Undated. Is All Your Rain Going Down the Drain? Look to Bioretainment Ð Trees Are A Solution. Davis, CA: US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. <http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/products/cufr_392_rain_down_the_drain.pdf>
CoPIRG. 2002. Down the Drain: The Impact of Sprawl on ColoradoÕs Water Supply. A Report by the Colorado Public Interest Research Foundation, Produced With the Generous Support of the Educational Foundation of America October 2002. <http://www.environmentcolorado.org/reports/downthedrain10_02.pdf> [This report shows the following: 1. Sprawl stresses our limited water supply. In fact, high-density planned development may use up to 35 percent less water than lowdensity sprawling development. 2. Sprawling development patterns negatively impact water quality. A one-acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of runoff that comes from a oneacre meadow. This runoff transports various pollutants into the water supply including: sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, organic carbon, copper, zinc, lead, petroleum hydrocarbons, and pesticides. 3. Poorly planned growth results in increased infrastructure costs for water and sewer needs. Lowdensity suburban development can cost two to three times more in infrastructure costs than a traditional community.]
Dallman, Suzanne & Tom Piechota. 1999. Stormwater: Asset Not Liability. Los Angeles: The Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council. <http://www.lasgrwc.org/publications/Stormwater.pdf> [ÒThe purpose of this paper is to educate the public about the relationship between urbanization and the natural rainfall cycle in the Los Angeles area. As we develop a greater understanding of the natural systems within which we live, and our impact on them, it will hopefully become clearer how to develop a healthier balance between us and those systems.Ó]
Dietz, Michael E. & John C. Clausen. 2005. ÒSaturation to Improve Pollutant Retention in a Rain Garden,Ó Environmental Science and Technology, v40n4 (2005): 1335-1340. <http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/asap/abs/es051644f.html> [Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO). Rain gardens have been recommended as a best management practice to treat stormwater runoff. Replicate rain gardens were constructed in Haddam, CT, to treat roof runoff. The objective of this study was to assess whether the creation of a saturated zone in a rain garden improved retention of pollutants. The gardens were sized to store 2.54 cm (1 in) of runoff. Results show high retention of flow; only 0.8% overflowed. Overall, concentrations of nitrite+ nitrate-N, ammonia-N, and total-N (TN) in roof runoff were reduced significantly by the rain gardens. Total-P concentrations were significantly increased by both rain gardens. ANCOVA results show significant reductions in TN (18%) due to saturation. Redox potential also decreased in the saturated garden. Rain garden mulch was found to be a sink for metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus, but rain garden soils were a source for these pollutants. The design used for these rain gardens was effective for flow retention, but did not reduce concentrations of all pollutants even when modified. These findings suggest that high flow and pollutant retention could be achieved with the 2.54 cm design method, but the use of an underdrain could reduce overall pollutant retention.]
Dwyer, Mark C. & Robert W. Miller. 1999. ÒUsing
GIS To Assess Urban Tree Canopy Benefits And Surrounding Greenspace Distributions,Ó Journal
of Arboriculture, v25n2 (March 1999).
<http://www.treelink.org/joa/1999/march/08_USING_GIS_TO_ASSESS_CANOPY_BENEFITS_dwyer.pdf> [CITYgreen¨, a geographic information system (GIS)-based program, was used to evaluate selected benefits provided by the tree canopy in the city
of Stevens Point, Wisconsin. We
assessed the distribution of open space in and around the greater Stevens Point area, energy savings from lowered air-conditioning costs,
and the reductions in stormwater
runoff as a partial function of existing tree canopy. Estimated annual energy savings for residential
areas in Stevens Point and
surrounding communities was $126,859.
A storm delivering 6.6 cm (2.6 in.) of rain in 24 hours will deposit just under 2 billion L (530 million gal)
of water on Stevens Point, of
which 400 million L (106 million gal)
will run off into the Wisconsin River. Approximately 6% of Stevens Point is covered by impervious surfacing, which accounts for 24% of
the cityÕs total stormwater runoff
volume. Orthophotographs were digitized
on screen, and land surrounding Stevens Point was classified based on vegetation cover,
land use, and current zoning. Land
use in the greater Stevens Point area
(22,250 ha [55, 000 ac]) is 20.7% developed, 24.1% agriculture, 46.8% undeveloped, and 8.4% surface
water. Planners, managers, elected
officials, and other interested parties
in land-use planning for the region are using the results of this study for open-space planning.]
Geiger, Jim. 2002. ÒIs All Your Rain Going Down the Drain? Trees Are A Solution,Ó Urban Forest Research, (Jul 2002). <http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/products/newsletters/UF4.pdf>
Hager, Mary C. 2003. ÒLow Impact Development: Lot-level approaches to stormwater management are gaining ground,Ó Stormwater, (Jan-Feb 2003). <http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/toolkit/vol2/Contents/pdfs/Low%20Impact%20Development/LID%20article.pdf>
Kane, Rene. 2004. The Green Fuse: Using Plants to Provide Ecosystem Services - A Literature Review. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon. <http://inr.oregonstate.edu/download/SPROUT_green_fuse.pdf>
Keating, Janis. ÒTrees: The Oldest New Things In Stormwater Treatment? How Much Do Tree Canopies Really Affect runoff volume?Ó Stormwater, v3n2 (March/April 2002). <http://www.forester.net/sw_0203_trees.html>
Kollin, Cheryl. ÒHow Green Infrastructure Measures Up to Structural Stormwater Services: Quantifying the Contributions of Trees and Vegetation,Ó Stormwater, v7n5 (July/August 2006). <http://www.forester.net/sw_0607_how.html> [Trees and soils function together to reduce stormwater runoff. Trees reduce stormwater flow by intercepting rainwater on leaves, branches, and trunks. Some of the intercepted water evaporates back into the atmosphere and some soaks into the ground, reducing the amount of runoff that must be managed in urban areas. Trees also slow storm flow, reducing the volume of water that a containment facility must store.]
Kreuzer, Heidi. 2001. ÒPlanning for a Rainy Day: Best Management Practices for Controlling Industrial Stormwater Runoff,Ó Pollution Engineering, (Feb-Mar 2001): 22-27.
Lloyd, Sara D. & Tony H.F. Wong & Christopher J. Chesterfield, 2002. Water Sensitive Urban Design: A Stormwater Management Perspective. Prepared on behalf of the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Victoria, Australia. <http://www.clearwater.asn.au/resources/291_1.pdf>
McPherson, E. Gregory & James R. Simpson & Paula J.
Peper & Scott E. Maco & Qingfu Xiao. 2005. ÒMunicipal
Forest Benefits and Costs in Five US Cities,Ó Journal of Forestry,
v103n8 (Dec 2005): 411-416. [Increasingly, city trees are viewed as a best
management practice to control stormwater, an urban-heatÐisland mitigation
measure for cleaner air, a CO2-reduction option to offset emissions, and an
alternative to costly new electric power plants. Measuring benefits that accrue
from the community forest is the first step to altering forest structure in
ways that will enhance future benefits. This article describes the structure, function,
and value of street and park tree populations in Fort Collins, Colorado;
Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bismarck, North Dakota; Berkeley, California; and Glendale,
Arizona. Although these cities spent $13Ð 65 annually per tree, benefits ranged
from $31 to $89 per tree. For every dollar invested in management, benefits
returned annually ranged from $1.37 to $3.09. Strategies each city can take to
increase net benefits are presented.]
McPherson, E. Gregory & James R. Simpson & Paula J.
Peper & Qingfu Xiao. 1999. ÒBenefit-Cost
Analysis Of ModestoÕs Municipal Urban Forest,Ó Journal of Arboriculture, v25n5 (Sep 1999): 235+.
<http://www.treelink.org/joa/1999/sep/02mcpherson.pdf> [This study answers the question: Do the accrued benefits from ModestoÕs urban forest
justify an annual municipal budget
that exceeds $2 million? Results indicate that the benefits residents obtain from ModestoÕs 91,179 public trees exceeded management costs by a factor
of nearly 2. In fiscal year
1997Ð1998, Modesto spent $2.6 million for
urban forestry ($14.36/resident, $28.77/tree), and 74% of this amount was for mature tree care.
Total annual benefits from
ModestoÕs urban forest were $4.95 million
($27.12/ resident, $54.33/tree). Net benefits for FY 1997Ð 1998 were $2,329,900 ($12.76/resident,
$25.55/tree). Annual air-pollutant
uptake was 154 metric tonnes (3.7
lb/tree), with an implied value of $1.48 million ($16/ tree). Aesthetics and other benefits had
an estimated value of $1.5 million
($17/tree). Building shade and cooler summer temperatures attributed to street and park trees saved 110,133 MBtu, valued at $870,000 (122
kWh/tree, $10/ tree). Smaller
benefits resulted from reductions in
stormwater runoff (292,000 m3 or 845 gal/tree, $616,000 or $7/tree) and atmospheric carbon
dioxide (13,900 t or 336 lb/tree,
$460,000 or $5/tree). Due to the populationÕs relatively even-aged structure and heavy reliance on
mature Modesto ash for benefits,
management strategies are needed
that may reduce net benefits but increase diversity and stability.]
Mitchell, Martha S. 2001. ÒGreen Solutions: Planting Trees for Healthy Watersheds,Ó Erosion Control, (July/August 2001). <http://www.forester.net/ec_0107_green.html> [Nationwide, people are turning to urban reforestation as a cost-effective investment in watershed recovery. And no wonder: Green infrastructure meets a raft of objectives. When the plants survive and thrive, they protect wetlands, endangered species, and water quality and provide millions of dollars of benefits in passive stormwater management and energy conservation. But thereÕs more to planting a new forest than meets the eye.]
Nisenson, Lisa et al. Using Smart Growth Techniques As Stormwater Best Management Practices. US EPA, 231-B-05-002. Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/sg_stormwater_BMP.pdf> [Regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program offer a structure for considering the water quality benefits associated with smart growth techniques. Compliance with federal, state, and local stormwater programs revolves around the use of ÒBest Management Practices,Ó or BMPs, to manage stormwater. Given the "built in " water benefits of smart growth at the site, neighborhood and watershed levels, smart growth techniques and policies are emerging as BMPs to manage stormwater runoff over the life of development and redevelopment projects.]
Nora Goldstein. 2002. ÒCompost and Stormwater Management: Tapping the Potential,Ó Biocycle, (Aug 2002): 33-38. <http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/assistance/compost/stormwater_bmp.pdf>
Quigley, Martin F. & Timothy Lawrence. Undated. Multi-Functional Landscaping: Putting Your Parking Lot Design Requirements to Work for Water Quality. Ohio State University Extension Factsheet CLÐ1000-01. <http://ohioline.osu.edu/cl-fact/pdf/1000.pdf>
Schueler, Tom R. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Stormwater Treatment Practices. Technical Note #95 from Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(4): 515-520. <http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Practice/64-Comparative%20Pollutant%20Removal.pdf> [From the Stormwater Manager's Resource Center web site. Over the last two decades, an impressive amount of research has been undertaken to document the pollutant removal capability of urban stormwater treatment practices. The Center has recently developed a national database that contains more than 135 individual stormwater practice performance studies. The goals for this project, were to generate national statistics about the pollutant removal capability of various groups of stormwater practices and to highlight gaps in our knowledge about pollutant removal.]
Staley, Dan. 2004. Benefits of the Urban Forest Literature Review. White Paper prepared for the Casey Trees Endowment Fund. <http://www.hiway410.com/dstaley/Draft%20Casey%20Trees%20White%20Paper.pdf>
Stephen J Gaffield; Robert L Goo; Lynn A Richards; Richard J Jackson 2003. ÒPublic Health Effects of Inadequately Managed Stormwater Runoff,Ó American Journal of Public Health, v93n9 (Sep 2003): 1527-1533. <http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/93/9/1527.pdf> [Gaffield et al investigate the scale of the public health risk from stormwater runoff caused by urbanization. Results reveal turbidity levels in other US cities were similar to those linked to illnesses in Milwaukee and Philadelphia and the estimated annual cost of waterborne illness is comparable to the long-term capital investment needed for improved drinking water treatment and stormwater management.]
Tice, Bill. 2007. ÒIntegrating Stormwater: The Role of Landscape Architecture and Site Design In Stormwater Treatment,Ó Stormwater, v8n1 (January/February 2007). <http://www.stormh2o.com/sw_0701_integrating.html>
Villarreal, Edgar L. & Annette Semadeni-Davies & Lars Bengtsson. 2004. ÒInner City Stormwater Control Using A Combination of Best Management Practices,Ó Ecological Engineering, v22 (2004): 279Ð298.
Wieske, Derek & Lisa M. Penna. 2002. ÒStorm-water Strategy,Ó Civil Engineering, (Feb 2002): 62-67. [The methods that engineers have used to manage the urban runoff problems plaguing the city of Laguna Beach, California, may serve as a bluepring for other municipalities confronting similar concerns.]
Xiao, Qingfu & E. Gregory McPherson. 2002. ÒRainfall Interception By Santa MonicaÕs Municipal Urban Forest,Ó Urban Ecosystems, v6n4 (2003): 291Ð302. [Effects of urban forests on rainfall interception and runoff reduction have been conceptualized, but not well quantified. In this study rainfall interception by street and park trees in Santa Monica, California is simulated. A mass and energy balance rainfall interception model is used to simulate rainfall interception processes (e.g., gross precipitation, free throughfall, canopy drip, stemflow, and evaporation). Annual rainfall interception by the 29,299 street and park trees was 193,168 m3 (6.6 m3/tree), or 1.6% of total precipitation. The annual value of avoided stormwater treatment and flood control costs associated with reduced runoff was $110,890 ($3.60/tree). Interception rate varied with tree species and sizes. Rainfall interception ranged from 15.3% (0.8 m3/tree) for a small Jacaranda mimosifolia (3.5 cm diameter at breast height) to 66.5% (20.8 m3/tree) for a mature Tristania conferta (38.1 cm). In a 25-year storm, interception by all street and park trees was 12,139.5 m3 (0.4%), each tree yielding $0.60 (0.4 m3/tree) in avoided flood control costs. Rainfall interception varied seasonally, averaging 14.8% during a 21.7 mm winter storm and 79.5% during a 20.3 mm summer storm for a large, deciduous Platanus acerifolia tree. Effects of differences in temporal precipitation patterns, tree population traits, and pruning practices on interception in Santa Monica, Modesto, and Sacramento, California are described.]
Xiao, Qingfu & E. Gregory McPherson & James R. Simpson & Susan Ustin. 1998. ÒRainfall Interception by SacramentoÕs Urban Forest,Ó Journal of Arboriculture, v24n4 (Jul 1998): 235-244. [A one-dimensional masws and energy balance model was developed to simulate rainfall interception in Sacramento County, California. The model describes tree interception processes: gross precipitation, leaf drip, stem flow, and evaporation. Kriging was used to extend existing meteorological point data over the region. Regional land use/land cover and tree canopy cover were parameterized with data obtained by remote sensing and ground sampling. For 5 precipitation events with return frequencies ranging from 2 years to 200 years, interception was greatest for small storms and least for large storms. Because small storms are responsible for most pollutant washout, urban forests are likely to produce greater benefits through water quality protection than through flood control.]
* * *
Center for Watershed Protection <http://www.cwp.org/>
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials <http://nemo.uconn.edu/>
Urban Forestry Index (UFind) <http://www.urbanforestryindex.net/>
City of Palo Alto, Public Works <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-links.html>
City of Palo Alto, Tree Program <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/>