1 / 37

School of Natural Resources Gund Institute of Ecological Economics

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

woods
Télécharger la présentation

School of Natural Resources Gund Institute of Ecological Economics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Redesigning the American NeighborhoodDeveloping an Ecological & Socioeconomic Framework for Effective Stormwater Management School of Natural Resources - UVM School of Natural Resources Gund Institute of Ecological Economics Alan McIntosh, Breck Bowden, Alexey Voinov, John Todd Alex Hackman, and Tim White

  2. The US at Night (1993 vs 2001) The National Geographic Society (2001)

  3. Burlington Urban Sprawl in New England • growth • fragmentation • corridors The National Geographic Society (2001)

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

  5. Sprawl &ImperviousCover Center for Watershed Protection 2003

  6. Flow as a ‘pollutant’ • Higher highs/lower lows • Intensification/flashiness Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

  7. Runoff as a function of Imperviousness Center for Watershed Protection (2003) after Schueler (1987)

  8. 100 80 60 Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent watershed impervious cover Northern Virginia Streams Fairfax County (2001) in CWP (2003)

  9. Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Total watershed impervious cover Variation among subwatersheds Horner and May (1999) in CWP (2003)

  10. TypicalPollutantConcentrationRanges State of Maine (1995)

  11. 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 Water Quality Standards VT Stormwater Manual, Vol 2

  12. Impacts ofImperviousArea Center for Watershed Protection (2003) as noted.

  13. Sprawl, impervious area, & impairment Center for Watershed Protection 2003

  14. Impaired Rivers Burton and Pitt (2002) Stormwater Effects Handbook

  15. Impaired Lakes Burton and Pitt (2002) Stormwater Effects Handbook

  16. Redesigning the American NeighborhoodDeveloping an Ecological & Socioeconomic Framework 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

  17. Effectiveness: unknown Orientation: source control Cost: uncertain – low? Risk: unknown – medium/high Effectiveness: uncertain Orientation: local protection Cost: known - medium Risk: uncertain - medium Effectiveness: known – depends Orientation: downstream protection Cost: known - high Risk: known - low Why focus on scale?

  18. Why focus on scale? Clearly, a mix of interventions is desirable. But what mix? For what purpose? Located where?

  19. Primary 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.

  20. Key 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?

  21. Project Focus Area

  22. ButlerFarmSubdivision

  23. Key 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)

  24. Stormwater management matters

  25. Fortuitous Timing • Vermont ANR ‘Watershed Improvement Permits’ • Vermont Water Resources Board ‘Investigative Docket’: What is the technical basis for stormwater management in Vermont?

  26. Key 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?

  27. What can science do tohelp solve complex problems? • The “perspectives” of science: basic - applied • The “limits” of science: unpredictability - precaution • The “fallibility” of science: reductionist - wholistic What are the indicators of good RS&T?

  28. Opportunities • 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.

  29. Thank you!

  30. National Event Mean Concentrations Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

  31. Impacts of Deposited Sediments Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

  32. Impacts of Suspended Sediments Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

  33. Potential pollutants other than sediments A measure of variance in the data. National EMC background Burton and Pitt (2002) Stormwater Effects Handbook

  34. University Mall

  35. Williston Road/Burlington Airport

  36. I-189/Shelburne Road

  37. Some immediate responses to the October 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)

More Related