school of natural resources gund institute of ecological economics
DESCRIPTION
Redesigning the American Neighborhood Developing an Ecological & Socioeconomic Framework for Effective Stormwater Management. School of Natural Resources - UVM. School of Natural Resources Gund Institute of Ecological Economics - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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)