Redesigning the American Neighborhood Developing an Ecological & Socioeconomic Framework for Effective Stormwater Management School of Natural Resources.

Redesigning the American NeighborhoodRedesigning the American Neighborhood

Developing an Ecological & Socioeconomic Developing an Ecological & Socioeconomic

Framework for Effective Stormwater ManagementFramework for Effective Stormwater Management

School of Natural ResourcesGund Institute of Ecological Economics

Alan McIntosh, Breck Bowden, Alexey Voinov, John Todd Alex Hackman, and Tim White

School of Natural Resources - UVM

The US at Night (1993 vs 2001)The US at Night (1993 vs 2001)

The National Geographic Society (2001)

Urban Sprawl in New EnglandUrban Sprawl in New England

The National Geographic Society (2001)

• growth• fragmentation• corridors

Urban SprawlUrban Sprawl

Sprawl is dispersed, automobile-dependent development outside of compact urban and village centers along highways and in rural countryside.

Sprawl &Sprawl &ImperviousImpervious

CoverCover

0 20 40 60 80

Commercial

Light Industry

Residential (multifamily)

Residential (townhouse)

Institutional

Residential (1/8 acre)

Residential 1/4 acre)

Residential (1/2 acre)

Residential (1 acre)

Residential (2 acre)

Open urban land

Parks, golf courses, cemetaries

Agriculture

Impervious area (%)

MeanSE

Center for Watershed Protection 2003

Flow as a ‘pollutant’Flow as a ‘pollutant’• Higher highs/lower lows• Intensification/flashiness

Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

Runoff as a function of ImperviousnessRunoff as a function of Imperviousness

Center for Watershed Protection (2003) after Schueler (1987)

Northern Virginia StreamsNorthern Virginia Streams

0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent watershed impervious cover

Inde

x of

Bio

tic I

nteg

rity

(IB

I)100

80

60

40

20

0

Fairfax County (2001) in CWP (2003)

Variation Variation amongamong subwatersheds subwatersheds

Total watershed impervious cover

Inde

x of

Bio

tic I

nteg

rity

(IB

I)

Horner and May (1999) in CWP (2003)

TypicalTypicalPollutantPollutant

ConcentrationConcentrationRangesRanges

State of Maine (1995)

Are sediments the only concern?Are sediments the only concern?Comparison to selected VT Water Quality Standards

No TSS causing impairment

0.010 – 0.054 mg/L total phosphorus

2 and 5 mg/l nitrate for Class A and B waters

10 ug/L acute, 8 ug/L chronic*

23 ug/L acute, <1 ug/L chronic*

57 ug/L acute, 52 ug/L chronic*

<<1 mg/L as pesticides and PCB’s

No oil or grease causing impairment

18 E. coli cfu/100ml 3x in 30days (A1 and A2)

33 E. coli cfu/100ml once (A1 and A2)

77 E. coli cfu/100 ml (B)

•at hardness of 50 mg/L

VT Stormwater Manual, Vol 2 VT Water Quality Standards

Impacts ofImpacts ofImperviousImpervious

AreaArea

Center for Watershed Protection (2003) as noted.

Sprawl, impervious area, & impairmentSprawl, impervious area, & impairment

Center for Watershed Protection 2003

Impaired Impaired RiversRivers

Burton and Pitt (2002) Stormwater Effects Handbook

Impaired Impaired LakesLakes

Burton and Pitt (2002) Stormwater Effects Handbook

Redesigning the American NeighborhoodRedesigning the American Neighborhood Developing an Ecological & Socioeconomic Framework Developing an Ecological & Socioeconomic Framework

for Effective Stormwater Management for Effective Stormwater Management

Purpose: To develop tools that will allow stakeholders, regulators, and researchers to visualize alternative future environmental states that they imagine collectively and then to optimize the mix of interventions at various scales, that will best balance environmental and social, as well as economic, criteria.

Supported by US/EPA

Why focus on scale?Why focus on scale?

Effectiveness: uncertainOrientation: local protectionCost: known - mediumRisk: uncertain - medium

Effectiveness: unknownOrientation: source controlCost: uncertain – low?Risk: unknown – medium/high

Effectiveness: known – dependsOrientation: downstream protectionCost: known - highRisk: known - low

Why focus on scale?Why focus on scale?

Clearly, a mix of interventions is desirable. But what mix? For what purpose? Located where?

Primary GoalPrimary Goal

Quantify the balances among environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits for storm water management at whole-watershed, neighborhood, and individual house scales in a typical New England landscape and climate.

Key ObjectivesKey Objectives

• Assessment: What are the opportunities for intervention?

• Evaluation: What are the comparative cost/benefits of these interventions?

• Participation: How can we better involve community stakeholders to devise successful solutions?

• Implementation: Can we demonstrate the these approaches work?

Project Focus AreaProject Focus Area

ButlerButlerFarmFarm

SubdivisionSubdivision

Key CollaborationsKey Collaborations

• US-EPA/SNR-UVM (McIntosh, Bowden, Todd, Voinov)

• Partnership with South Burlington (JB Hoover)

• Collaboration with key consultants (PEC, J Nelson)

• Advice from key stakeholders (Project Working Groups)

• EPA Demonstration grant (JB Hoover)

• NRCD implementation grant (A. Willard, B. Gabos)

Stormwater management mattersStormwater management matters

Fortuitous TimingFortuitous Timing

• Vermont ANR ‘Watershed Improvement Permits’

• Vermont Water Resources Board ‘Investigative Docket’: What is the technical basis for stormwater management in Vermont?

Key Questions in the WRB InvestigationKey Questions in the WRB Investigation

• Is it feasible to use ‘source control’ as a primary option?

• Can improvements be achieved in 5 years?

• Can we separate and deal with natural vs man-made sources of pollutants?

• Is a TMDL approach the best way to address clean up streams impaired by stormwater?

• Are stormwater ‘offsets’ a reasonable approach to stormwater management?

• Can we predict how ‘indicators’ of impairment will respond to stormwater treatment strategies?

• What is the best way to evaluate progress toward desired goals?

• What are the best ‘targets’ to judge when we have attained desirable goals?

• If we can’t attain the standards we want, what should we do?

What can science do toWhat can science do tohelp solve complex problems?help solve complex problems?

• The “limits” of science: unpredictability - precaution

• The “fallibility” of science: reductionist - wholistic

• The “perspectives” of science: basic - applied

What are the indicators of good RS&T?

OpportunitiesOpportunities

• Vermont (and Potash Brook) have become ‘ground zero’ for stormwater issues regionally as well as nationally

• Several partners have come together to form the RAN collaboration.

• The RAN collaboration is in a position to contribute significantly to this debate.

Thank you!Thank you!

National National Event Mean Event Mean

ConcentrationsConcentrations

Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

Impacts of Deposited SedimentsImpacts of Deposited Sediments

Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

Impacts of Suspended SedimentsImpacts of Suspended Sediments

Potential pollutants other than sedimentsPotential pollutants other than sediments

Burton and Pitt (2002) Stormwater Effects HandbookNational EMC background

A measure of variance in the data.

University MallUniversity Mall

Williston Road/Burlington AirportWilliston Road/Burlington Airport

I-189/Shelburne RoadI-189/Shelburne Road

Some immediate responses to the Some immediate responses to the October 2003 SNR Board MeetingOctober 2003 SNR Board Meeting

• Seminar in Urban Watershed Management (Bowden)

• Panel Discussion on Urban Sprawl (Bowden)

• Seminar in Stormwater Modeling (Bowden)

• Seminar in EcoVillage Design (Costanza et al.)

• Ecological Design & Living Technologies (Todd)

• Urban planning and policy development (Troy)

• Ecological Economics (Erikson)