James (Jim) Wickham

1
A Brief Overview of Green Infrastructure Research
Activities at EPA
James (Jim) Wickham wickham.james_at_epa.gov US EPA
Office of Research Development Research
Triangle Park, NC
Pinch-hitting for Matt Nicholson US EPA, Region
III Philadelphia, PA
2
GI Activities at EPA

• Integrating built and natural infrastructure
  solutions

• Will it work?
• Can it be implemented at the scales needed?

• Overcoming institutional and sectoral silos

• What policies are needed to support investment in
  natural infrastructure as an integral part of
  water infrastructure (e.g., ecosystem services)?
• What tools exist or can be further developed to
  invest in natural infrastructure at the watershed
  level (e.g., ecosystem service payments)?

• Infrastructure optimization

• What needs to be done to make it happen?
• Are there places where it is happening?

3
EPA Authorities

• Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (1972)
  First major legislation established following
  formation of EPA in 1970.
• Regulate discharge of pollutants in to the
  nations waterways
• http//www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwahistory.html

• Safe Drinking Water Act 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.
  (1974) The Act authorizes EPA to establish
  minimum standards to protect tap water and
  requires all owners or operators of public water
  systems to comply with these primary
  (health-related) standards.
• http//www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/sdwa.html

• Clean Air Act (1970) This legislation
  authorized the development of comprehensive
  federal and state regulations to limit emissions
  from both stationary (industrial) sources and
  mobile sources.
• http//epa.gov/oar/caa/caa_history.html

4
Green Infrastructure Activities at EPA

1. MultiResolution Land Characteristics (MRLC)
   Consortium (www.mrlc.gov)
2. EPA (Atlanta) Southeastern Ecological Framework
   (SEF) (www.geoplan.ufl.edu/epa)
3. EPA (Chicago) Critical Ecosystem Assessment
   Model (CrEAM)
4. EPA (Philadelphia) Initiated a GI Community of
   Practice
5. Towards a Sustainable America (Presidents
   Council on Sustainable Development)
   (clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf)
6. EPA (Office of Research Development) Renewed
   emphasis on GI as a research area (predominantly
   gray infrastructure)
7. EPA (Office of Water) Healthy Waters Initiative

5
MultiResolution Land Characteristics (MRLC)
Consortium
In operation since 1995
A successful bottom-up e-government initiative to
provide digital land-cover data for nation.
Includes almost all federal agencies (USGS, NOAA,
USFS, EPA, USDA, OSM, Census, DOT, NASA, NPS,
USFWS).
Developing into a land-cover monitoring program
(change detection)

• All major U.S. operational remote sensing
  programs have depended on MRLC data pool or
  classification technology
• NLCD (www.mrlc.gov)
• C-CAP (www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast)
• CDL (nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape)
• LANDFIRE (www.landfire.gov)
• GAP (gapanalysis.usgs.gov)

Wickham J, Homer C, Fry J, Vogelmann J, Mueller
R, Herold N, Coulston J. in review. The
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
20 years of development and integration of U.S.
national land cover data. Remote Sensing of
Environment.
6
MultiResolution Land Characteristics (MRLC)
Consortium
NOAA C-CAP
7
GI Activities at EPA
Forest-wetland networks in US by number of core
(hub) areas in network
Wickham, Riitters, Wade, Vogt (2010) A national
assessment of green infrastructure using
morphological image processing. Landsc. Urban
Plann. 94186-195
8
Maryland Greenprint
Uses GI maps and other ecological models to
optimize financial resources allocated for
conservation.
Weber, T., Sloan, A., Wolf, J., 2006. Marylands
green infrastructure assessment development of a
comprehensive approach to land conservation.
Landscape Urban Plan. 77, 94110. Weber, T.,
2004. Landscape ecological assessment of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environ. Monit. Assess.
94, 3953.
9
Maryland Greenprint
10
Maryland Greenprint
11
Clean Water Act (Recovery Potential)
Clean Water Act (water infrastructure)
Sections 305(b) and 303(d) engine of CWA
reporting states submit biennial reports of
waterbody condition 305(b) of which some are
impaired 303(d) TMDL (Total Maximum Daily
Load) a assessment of the factors causing
impairment and the maximum levels (loads) that
can be allowed while still meeting water quality
standards)
305b
http//www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/
It is easier to detect impairment than restore
functionality and thus there are about 40,000
identified impaired waters (303(d)). Little
guidance on prioritization of impaired waters
Norton DJ, Wickham J, Wade TG, Kunert K, Thomas
JV, Zeph P. 2009. A method for comparative
analysis of recovery potential in impaired waters
restoration planning. Environmental Management
44356-368.
12
Clean Water Act (Recovery Potential)
Blue ongoing or completed projects Yellow
Gray

1. Project started 2008.
2. Training offered in all 50 states.
3. Projects ongoing in 15 states.
4. EPA sponsors website

Recovery potential comparative site analysis
(conducted by states) to identified the set of
impaired waters mostly likely to recovery if
restoration was implemented.
13
Healthy Watersheds Initiative

• Clean Water Act (overall mission) Restore and
  protected the nations waters
• It is less expensive to protect than it is to
  restore!
• Expand focus to include protection of healthy,
  intact systems

• EPA Healthy Watersheds Initiative
• Goals 1) identify network of healthy
  watersheds, 2) integrate into EPA, 3) outreach
• Stakeholder work with local state partners
  serve as a hub
• Act as an integrator of conservation efforts
  nationwide

Website www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds EPA 2011.
Healthy Watersheds Initiative National Framework
and Action Plan. EPA, Office of Water, EPA
841-R-11-005
14
Drinking Water
Background
Drinking water resources are protected by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA)

• Estab. 1974 (P.L. 93-523) amended 1986 (P.L.
  99-399) 1996 (P.L. 104-182).

• 1974 passed law after studies reveal
  widespread problems due to poor operating
  procedures, inadequate facilities, uneven
  management.
• (EPA regulatory authority states
  implementation and enforcement)

• SDWA establishes standards for public water
  supplies, control of underground injection of
  waste, financing of infrastructure, and

• 1986 increase pace of regulated contaminants
  groundwater protection.

• 1996 sweeping changes source water
  protection (watersheds).

• Approximately two-thirds of the US population
  relies on drinking water from surface sources
  (Levin et al. 2002, US EPA 2008).

Source Tiemann (2008) Congressional Research
Service, Order Code RL31243
15
Drinking Water
Background
1996 amendments co-occurred with shift toward
protection conservation

• NYC filtration avoidance determination (NRC
  2000)

• Treatment cost decline by 20 for every 10
  increase in forest (10-60 forest)1

• Several US cities have opted for watershed
  preservation to avoid the capital costs of
  treatment2

• Approximately 35 of 105 of the worlds larger
  cities have invested in watershed preservation to
  secure drinking water3

• New guidance document on protecting natural
  resources in drinking water watersheds4

1 Ernst C, Gullick R, Nixon K (2004) Protecting
the source conserving forests to protect water.
Opflow 3017
2 Postel SL, Thompson BH Jr (2005) Watershed
protection capturing the benefits of natures
water supply services. Natural Resources Forum
2998108
3 Dudley N, Stolton S (2003) Running pure the
importance of forest protected areas to drinking
water. World Bank/ World Wildlife Fund
International. www.worldbank.org
4 WRI(2013) Natural infrastructure Investing in
forested landscapes for source water protection
in the United States. World Resources Institute
16
Drinking Water
17
Drinking Water
Wickham J, Flather CH. 2013. Integrating
biodiversity and drinking water protection goals
through geographic analysis. Diversity and
Distributions 191198-1207. Wickham J, Wade, T,
Riitters K. 2011. An environmental assessment of
US drinking water watersheds. Landscape Ecology
26605-616.
18
Summary
Are local, stakeholder-driven conservation
efforts accounting for a national perspective and
how green infrastructure might be changing? Are
local, stakeholder-driven conservation efforts
taking Clean Water Act information (e.g.,
impaired waters, state revolving fund) into
account? Are local, stakeholder-driven
conservation efforts taking Safe Drinking Water
Act information (drinking water intakes, drinking
water state revolving fund) into account? Are
local, stakeholder-driven conservation efforts
contacting EPA Healthy Watersheds Initiative
personnel (theyd like to know about it, and may
be able to help)?
Contacts Matt Nicholson (nicholson.matt) EPA,
Region III Doug Norton (norton.douglas_at_epa.gov)
Recovery Potential Laura Gabanski
(gabanski.laura_at_epa.gov) Healthy Watersheds
Initiative Anne Neale (neale.anne_at_epa.gov)
EnviroAtlas
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)