Pilot Project - Rivanna River Basin Commission

10/20/10 Loca%on of Pilot Project Planning District 10, Thomas Jefferson SWCD, Rivanna River Basin Commission 2 Goals of the Pilot Project Pilot Project Steering Commi4ee   Connie Brennan
Supervisor, Nelson County The Nature Conservancy
Leslie Middleton* Rivanna River Basin Commission Rick Parrish* Southern Environmental Law Center Alyson Sappington Thomas Jefferson SWCD Carl Schmitt
Supervisor, Greene County Sally Thomas*
CBP LGAC Greg Wichelns
Culpeper SWCD Steve Williams Thomas Jefferson PDC * Members, Virginia Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)   Bill Kittrell  
 
 
 
 
 
 
(1) Provide accurate information to different groups of stakeholders who will be affected by the Bay TMDL.  
 
 
 
local government (staff and elected officials) forestry/agriculture building/development/economic development permit holders (waste, MS4, industrial, onsite septic) (2) Solicit feedback, concerns and suggestions to improve understanding of local implementation challenges. (3) Provide feedback to Virginia DCR for the Phase II WIPs. Contractor Support through EPA contracts Frank Dukes Institute for Environmental Negotiations Peter Von Loewe
TetraTech, Water Resources Modeling 3 4 1 10/20/10 Goals of the Pilot Project Piedmont Regional Pilot Project Process (4) Ascertain the interest in coordinating a regional or watershed based response. (5) Evaluate whether Bay TMDL requirements can be seen as an opportunity to leverage support for cleaning up local (Piedmont) streams. (6) Review existing impaired waters and analyze relative to Bay pollution targets in order to coordinate with local clean‐up efforts   Task 1: Existing Conditions – (with assistance from TetraTech) Analyze estimated waste load allocations in Pilot Project area in comparison to loadings specified in local “equivalent” TMDL in the Rivanna (for sediment).   Task 2: Conduct outreach to pollutant sector stakeholders   Conduct Focus Groups   Prepare findings   Return with findings to local elected bodies   Finalize report for EPA and DCR We did not attempt to engage citizens, advocacy groups or the general public in any way. 5 Pilot Project Observa%ons Pilot Project Observa%ons 1. Complex issue with dense historic and scientific background and evolving requirements offers a challenging situation from which to build local buy‐in.  
 
 
 
6 2. To engage local governments and affected stakeholders as partners, it will be essential to share the methodology by which local‐level allocations will be (or are being) made. Must simplify language but not the science Difficult to judge appropriate level of detail Requires “cyclical learning” (multiple presentations) Bay TMDL just one of many pressing issues facing local elected officials “We’ll just wait and see.” “Just tell us what you need us to do.”   Outright suspicion of the state and EPA.   Natural response to any uncertainty is fear.   The natural response to fear is fight or flight.  
 
7 8 2 10/20/10 Pilot Project Observa%ons Pilot Project and Bay Model Segments 3. To the degree that the Bay models are used to develop local allocations, it will be essential to:   Recognize and acknowledge that local water quality data will always trump model numbers.   Recognize that data and certainty are both needed – and work hand‐in‐hand for supporting local communities.   Provide mechanisms for utilization of local water quality data in the Bay TMDL process. !"#$%&'&(&)*&$+,-./)0$1++&++2&)3$4)/3+5$6-7)8&+5$")9$:;<$!-9&=&9$>7?+&02&)3+;
9 Pilot Project Observa%ons 10 Pilot Project Observa%ons 4. Dedicated funding for watershed implementation 5. Resources must be made available at the local level to plan for and implement necessary changes. planning will be needed at the local level to develop the Phase 2 WIPs.   Funding necessary to collect and assess local existing conditions (BMP inventories, staff, land use, infrastructure) in order to assess local/
regional gap analysis.   Cannot assume localities will simply raise local taxes to   Funding necessary for local government and local and regional agencies to cover costs of planning and implementation. dedicate staff time to develop plans.   Pilot Project has been staff‐time intensive:  
 
 
 
12+ Steering Committee meetings 5 focus group meetings Presentations to 6 elected bodies of local government Coordination, documentation, and reporting   In the absence of detailed state‐level resource gap analysis, local governments assume the burden will fall on them. 11 12 3 10/20/10 DRAFT 2010 Impairments
Pilot Project Observa%ons (
!
Rapidan River
City
National Hydrography Dataset (USGS)
Riv
er
Ra
Co
.
Co
.
Gr
ee
Or ne
an
ge
n
e Ru
Sou
X-tri
Bosto
b to
n Creek
r Cr
eek
top
na
An
e
ak
ek
eek
/L
Cr
ter
wa
er
Little River
r
Little River
Fork Creek
eek
Cr
Ow
ble
na
Ve
na
Ca
lors
Cree
k
River
an
eek
ry
Cr
Riv
Anna
ens
Cr
Tay
South
ek
eek
Flu
van
Go
na
och
Co
.
lan
d Co
.
h
CreekFork
m
the
ingha Nort
X-tri
b to
Cunn
CreekFork
to the
Cunning
Middle
ham
X-trib
ek
P a l m y r a !(
ek
Cre
Ann
a Riv
b Cre
en
th
taryRive
tribu a
d Ann
h
ame
Unn Sout
the
to
Cu
Gre
Byrd Creek
d Cre
Hat
Ch
Gold Mine
Con
South Anna River
.
Byr
Rucker Run
a
Fr
Co
X-trib
Rivianna to
River
Creek
Ann
he
Creek
Lake
Izac
ma
rle
a Co Co .
.
be
uis
Al
Lo
Biscu
na
lo
Middle
Cunnin
ghamFork
k
Creek
eek
ek
van
ek
er
a Riv
ann
r Cr
Cre
Cre
Fork
Cree ham
k
Lake
M i n e r a l !(
Zion Crossroads
Riv
tie
To
Ballinger
Mont
Sprin ebello
gB
ranch
nd
Co.
Cree
.
me
r
s Ri
ve
r
es
Ballinger Creek
James River
Riv
er
Nort
h Cree
Riv
er
k
Jam
Tye
Riv
es
L o v i n g s t o n !(
David Creek
James River
er
about the mechanisms by which will local water quality can be assured. 8
Isla
Mid
Cun
dle
ning
r
ia Co.
Phils
e Co
.
n Co
t Co.
Tye River
Amhers
Nelson Co.
  The present emphasis on trading and offsets raises concerns 4
ck
Fluvanna Ruritan
Lake
Rive
ylvan
River
Jam
ffa
lo
Ri
ve
12
Riv
er
Bear Garden Creek
James River
River
r
±
2
re
S c o t t s v i l l e !(
River
Ja
James
0
dwa
Spots
Anna
(
!
isa
Lake
arl
lso
Rockfish River
Ty e R i v e r
Bu
existing local TMDLs are addressed during this process. Bu
Har
Nelson
Lake
  Local communities want specific and concrete assurances that k
em
Ne
Cre
Alb
vis
For
re River
North
ris
ek
Cre
nch
ddy
Bra
Cr
eek
ked
Flat
Na
k
k
For
No
rth
ell Cree
Pow
a Riv
er
dow
X-tri
Mea
Sch b Creek
Bra enk
nch 's
it Run
eek
er
Da
th
Al
be
m
ar
Flu
le
va
nn Co .
a Co
.
r Cr
sh River
Riv
local existing healthy waters. y Rive
r Nor
Fork
South
are River
Hardw H a r d w a
Rockfish
Pine
Rive
ticel
Rockfi
Tye
  It will be essential (and cost effective) to identify and protect re
Lou
Mon
Nellysford
ek
dwa
ylo
Rockfish River
North Fork
North
Branchare River
South
Hardw
Fork
Lou
Wheeler Creek
Flu
Ta
(
!
isa
e
Lak
er
Har
Rockfish River
South Fork
Tye River South Fork
Louisa Co.
North Anna River
chueek
Me Cr
Riv
(
!
na
Charl ottesv il le
Moores Creek Rivann
a
River
An
Ragged Mountain
Reservoir
rth
d
Run Axe
nk
ll Creek
Broa
Orange Co.
Go rdo nsv il le
Rivianna River
Carro
er
k
Riv
k
Cree
res ib
Moo X-tr
ms
Cree
Me
chu
Run
(
!
don
svil
le
No
Meadow Creek
Lak
e Gor
ann
eek
wn
To anch
Br
Cr
Fork X-trib
SouthRiver
Rivianna
ey
Stockton Creek
South Fork Rivanna
River Reservoir
Albemarle Lake
Ivy
Pre
rma
Creek
Parrott
Branch
Cr
Mor
(http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wqa/305b2010.html)
Blu
Mo
unt
ain
Moo
Mo
orm
Sou ans
th
For River
k
ole
Beaver Creek
eek
Reservoir
(
!
Slabtown
Crozet
Branch
This map reflects impaired rivers, lakes and reservoirs from
the 2010 draft 303 (d) report issued on 08/26/10. Draft 2010
impairments were overlaid on the 2008 DEQ shapefiles.
Riva
nna
Sou
th Rive
For r
k
Moormans River
Beaver
gh
ek
kin
.
Cre
Lic
Delisted in 2010
Co
ver
pH
n
r
Multiple
iso
a Rive
h Ann
Charlottesville
Reservoir
Mercury
M
ad
r
Sout
Delisted in 2010
ve
Bea
PCB
Impaired Reservoir
Ri
Chris Green
Lake
Riv
DO
Run
Swift
Cr
eek
Cre
Bra ek
nch
n
Ma
rsh
Ru
n
r Nort
tai
ns Rive
un
Pre
No ddy
rth
Mo
er
s Riv
h Fork
yle
Mercury
ck
an
Wildwood
Valley Lake
Lake
Shenandoah
Gre
ene
Co.
Alb
em
arle
Co.
y Cre
t Run
Do
Benthic Macroinvertebrate
pid
Green Mountain
Lake
ch
Bu
Multiple
use of local water quality data may be essential for eliciting buy‐in of local governments and affected stakeholders. Swif
er Bran
Park
0 ft
Bacteria
6. Making the case for improved local water quality and th
S t a n a r d s v i l l e !(
1482 ft
trar
Sou
Watershed Boundary
Impairment
esh
County Boundary
Elevation
!"#$%"&$&'(&")*+,"-.$
/012$12$3$)&34$5'&21"-$
6'-'&3#')$"-7897:9;878$
Miles
16
Rivanna Healthy Waters (2009) 13 Pilot Project Observa%ons 14 Pilot Project Observa%ons 7. A collaborative partnership between local governments, local SWCDs, PDCs, and watershed groups that engages affected stakeholders may be the best approach for developing Phase 2 WIP. 8. Utilize existing local forums for bringing together affected stakeholders to develop local/regional solutions.   Conduct focus groups with each sector separately, then offer   While local governments will ultimately be “responsible” for implementation, they cannot do so without strong partnerships with SWCDs, PDCs, and watershed groups.   At the same time, water quality is ultimately watershed‐based.   One size does not fit all localities or regions: it may not be practical or effective to have one entity across the across the state take the lead (e.g. SWCDs or PDCs).   Local and regional planning should be matched to appropriate scale (e.g., Fairfax County vs City of Charlottesville). the possibility of meeting as a larger group.   The effectiveness of these conversations is reduced when conducted in the context of uncertainty about sector allocations and allowable trading and offset opportunities. 15 16 4 10/20/10 Pilot Project Observa%ons Pilot Project: Next Steps 9. Process of Piedmont Regional Pilot Project can be duplicated in other localities/regions with adequate information and resources. November 3
November
November
November 13
December 2
December 31
  The process of developing local WIPs will likely be easier once local allocations are known.   We hope that the process we’ve used in the Piedmont Region Draft report Presentations and/or work sessions for (6) local gov’ts TT ‐ Analysis of local sediment TMDL Presentation to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forum Multiple stakeholder focus group Final Report to EPA and DCR Ongoing work between local governments, TJPDC, SWCDs, Rivanna River Basin Commission to clarify roles in Phase 2 of Virginia can be used as a template for other regions. 17 18 Ques%ons? Contact Information Piedmont Regional Pilot Project c/o Rivanna River Basin Commission 706 Forest Street, Suite G Charlottesville, VA 22903 middleton@rivannariverbasin.org (434) 971‐7722 www.rivannariverbasin.org 19 5