Redesigning the American Neighborhood Developing an Ecological & Socioeconomic Framework for Effective Stormwater Management School of Natural Resources Gund 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 National Geographic Society (2001)

Urban Sprawl in New England The National Geographic Society (2001) growth fragmentation corridors

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

Sprawl & Impervious Cover Center for Watershed Protection 2003

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

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

Northern Virginia Streams Percent watershed impervious cover Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Fairfax County (2001) in CWP (2003)

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

Typical Pollutant Concentration Ranges State of Maine (1995)

Are sediments the only concern? Comparison to selected VT Water Quality Standards No TSS causing impairment – 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 of Impervious Area Center for Watershed Protection (2003) as noted.

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

Impaired Rivers Burton and Pitt (2002) Stormwater Effects Handbook

Impaired Lakes Burton and Pitt (2002) Stormwater Effects Handbook

Redesigning the American Neighborhood Developing 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

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

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

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.

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?

Project Focus Area

Butler Farm Subdivision

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)

Stormwater management matters

Fortuitous 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 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 to help solve complex problems? The “limits” of science: unpredictability - precautionThe “limits” of science: unpredictability - precaution The “fallibility” of science: reductionist - wholisticThe “fallibility” of science: reductionist - wholistic The “perspectives” of science: basic - applied What are the indicators of good RS&T?

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.

Thank you!

National Event Mean Concentrations Center for Watershed Protection (2003)

Impacts of Deposited Sediments

Center for Watershed Protection (2003) Impacts of Suspended Sediments

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

University Mall

Williston Road/Burlington Airport

I-189/Shelburne Road

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)