Stormwater management trade-offs for Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The separation of stormwater from the sewage waste stream has been implemented in many cities to minimize combined sewer overflows (CSOs) during periods of heavy rain. In the absence of treatment, discharges from separated sewer/stormwater outfalls are also very damaging to aquatic environments as they typically carry numerous nonpoint source pollutants and alter the delicate geomorphology of natural watercourses. A new strategy has emerged during the past few decades that focuses on absorbing, infiltrating and detaining stormwater to reduce peak flows and filter out nonpoint source pollution, thereby addressing CSOs, stormwater runoff pollution and flooding at the same time. An increasing number of cities in the United States and Canada have devised comprehensive plans to incorporate these methods into their overall wastewater management strategies. In an effort to eliminate CSOs and build resilience against flooding the City of Vancouver has committed over $1 billion to separate all of its remaining combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure by 2050. In contrast, Seattle and Portland (Oregon), two cities with similar rainfall patterns and levels of urbanization are following strategies that utilize a combination of targeted conventional stormwater infrastructure upgrades and GI to minimize CSOs, stormwater runoff pollution and flooding. As the City of Vancouver moves forward with its city-wide Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, this thesis contends that its sewer separation project should be revised to also include a comprehensive network of GI. The primary investigatory goal of this thesis is to identify and analyze the social, institutional, economic and technical barriers encountered by Portland and Seattle to the implementation of GI and the key factors that enabled its implementation. This is accomplished through interviews conducted with key staff members from Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), supported by a review of recent literature. It was found that Portland and Seattle overcame a variety of social, institutional, economic and technical barriers through the use of cost effective pilot projects, extensive public consultation, slowly changing the internal culture towards GI within municipal departments, offering financial incentives and through increasing the profile of their projects through awards and competitions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".