Chesapeake Bay Program

Proceedings
Urban Non-Point Source Forum
February 28, 2000

-------
Urban Non-Point Source Forum

February 28, 2000

A forum developed for the Urban Workgroup
of the

Chesapeake Bay Program's
Nutrient Subcommittee

Planning and Implementation Committee for the forum included:

Joe Battiata, UWG Chair, VA DCR

Tom Simpson, NSC Chair, MDA

Russ Mader, NSC Laison, USDA NRCS

Amy Decker, NSC Fellow, CRC/CBPO

Julie Trask, NSC Fellow, CRC/CBPO

Phil Favero, Facilitator/Extension Specialist, U of MD

Danielle Lucid, Facilitator/MD DNR

This document is a summary of the Urban Non-Point Source Forum.

2

-------
URBAN NON-POINT SOURCE FORUM
February 28, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION	

...4

URBAN NON-POINT SOURCE FORUM
AGENDA	5

ABSTRACTS	

...6

SUMMARY OF IDEAS FROM THE BREAKOUT
SESSIONS	11

FUTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS	14

LIST OF

REGISTRANTS	20

3

-------
INTRODUCTION

The Chesapeake Bay Program has made important progress in reaching our nutrient reduction goals. These goals
are capped loads that must be maintained in the face of growth. The draft 2000 Bay Agreement challenges us to
completely remove all water quality impairments in Chesapeake Bay.

The nutrient cap or new goals will require us to redouble our efforts to reduce nutrient or sediment pollution from
all sources. Urban non-point sources are proving particularly difficult to address, and they are expected to continue
to increase. Managing growth is important but we must also reduce nutrient and sediment pollution from existing
development and minimize it from new development.

The Nutrient Subcommittee, through its Urban Workgroup has looked at innovative approaches to storm water
management for several years. It is apparent that efforts must be expanded and/or better linked with those of state
and federal government, property owners, and the private sector. To initiate this process, a one day
stakeholder/expert forum was held.

Invitations were sent to all the Chesapeake Bay Program jurisdictions were represented. These included, from
Virginia, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Hampton Roads Planning and Sanitation Districts, City of
Alexandria, Fairfax County and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. From Maryland, individuals from
University of Maryland, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Prince George's Soil Conservation District and Planning
Division, Montgomery County, Maryland Cooperative Extension, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland
Department of the Environment, Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Maryland Office of Planning
attended. From Washington DC, representatives came from the Environmental Health Agency, Office of
Watershed Planning, Department of Health and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection participated as well as federal agencies such as Natural Resource
Conservation Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Center for Watershed Protection, a non-
profit organization, also took part in the forum.

The purpose of the forum was to identify opportunities to reduce urban non-point nutrient and sediment pollution
and to determine the appropriate role for the Chesapeake Bay Program. Speakers informed participants about the
current role of the Nutrient Subcommittee and suggested innovative ideas for existing and new developments.
Participants engaged in small and large group activities to identify opportunities, new roles, and strategic actions
for the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The Nutrient Subcommittee will refocus our efforts to complement and coordinate activities by state and local
government, private entities and other Bay Program partners based on the outcomes of this forum. Future work
plans and new membership for our Urban Workgroup will be largely based on the results of the forum.

4

-------
URBAN NON-POINT SOURCE FORUM

Monday, February 28, 2000
9:30 AM to 3:30 PM

AGENDA

9:00	Registration

9:30	Welcome

The morning moderator, Joe Battiata, chair of the Nutrient Subcommittee's Urban Workgroup,

will welcome participants.

Overview

Tom Simpson, chair of the Nutrient Subcommittee, will give a brief overview of the importance of
urban non-point source nutrient pollution and current and future Chesapeake Bay Program
goals.

Toxics Non-Point Source Issues and Interest

Kelly Eisenman, Toxics Subcommittee Coordinator

9:50	Reducing Nutrient Pollution from Existing and New Development

Larry Coffman of Prince George's County Maryland will present new low cost technological

solutions to urban runoff nutrient management from existing development.

Tom Schueler of the Center for Watershed Protection will discuss long term control of nutrient

pollution from new development through various practices, design and pollution prevention

options.

10:30	Break-out I

Participants will breakout to discuss opportunities for nutrient reduction from existing or new
development.

Group representatives will report group findings.

12:00	Lunch

1:00	Current Roles in Urban Non-Point Source Pollution Control

Joe Battiata, Urban Workgroup Chair

1:20	Chesapeake Bay Program Involvement

Carin Bisland of the Chesapeake Bay Program will discuss the potential roles for CBP to get
involved in the reduction of urban non-point source pollution.

1:30	Break-out II

Groups will discuss the role of the Chesapeake Bay Program relative to other responsible
parties.

11:30	Report I

2:30	Report II

Group Representatives will report group findings.

3:00	Suggestions for Future Action by the Chesapeake Bay Program

Participants will discuss the most effective and appropriate role for the Chesapeake Bay
Program.

5

-------
Adjourn

-------
ABSTRACTS

Low Impact Development A New Paradigm in Stormwater Management

Micro-Scale Management and Ecological Site Design

Larry S. Coffman, Associate Director Prince George's County, Maryland

Whether complying with Federal or State regulations or addressing local vital watershed protection / restoration
objectives, local jurisdictions are confronted with the daunting task of developing, administering and funding
complex effective multi-objective stormwater management programs. Today's comprehensive stormwater program
not only has to deal with runoff quantity and quality control but, may also have to address such complicated issues
as ecosystem restoration, combined sewer overflow reduction, fisheries protection; potable surface / ground water
source protection, and wetland, riparian buffer and stream protection. As our understanding of the technical and
practical limitations of conventional stormwater management technology has increased over the past two decades,
and as watershed protection objectives have changed, many jurisdictions have begun to question the efficacy and
cost effectiveness of conventional stormwater approaches to meet today's complex environmental / water resources
objectives. Older communities with existing extensive stormwater management infrastructures are also struggling
with the economic reality of funding the high costs of maintenance, inspection, enforcement and public outreach
necessary to support an expanding and aging infrastructure. Still more challenging is the exceptionally high costs
of retrofitting existing development using conventional stormwater management end-of-pipe practices to restore
and protect receiving waters.

With growing concerns about the limitations of conventional technology and to address the changing objectives of
watershed protection, in 1990 Prince George's County' Department of Environmental Resources (PGDER) began
exploring alternative stormwater management practices and strategies. The development of bio retention or "Rain
Gardens" (using the green space to manage runoff within small depressed landscaped areas) lead to the
understanding of how to optimize and engineer the landscape to restore hydrologic functions by uniformly
integrating micro-scale management practices and impact minimization measures into the development landscape.
In 1997 PGDER released the Low Impact Development (LID) Design Manual demonstrating the principles and
practices of LID to create a hydrologically functional landscape.

LID maintains or restores the hydrologic regime and manages stormwater by fundamentally changing conventional
site design to create an environmentally and hydrologically functional landscape that mimics natural watershed
hydrologic functions (volume, frequency, recharge and discharge). This is accomplished in four ways. First,
minimizing impacts to the extent practicable by reducing imperviousness, conserving natural resources and
ecosystems, maintaining natural drainage courses, reducing use of pipes and minimizing clearing and grading.
Secondly, recreate detention and retention storage dispersed throughout a site with the use of open swales, flatter
slopes, rain gardens (bioretention) rain barrels, etc. Thirdly, maintain predevelopment time of concentration by
strategically routing flows to maintain travel time. Fourthly, provide effective public education and socioeconomic
incentives to ensure property owners use effective pollution prevention measures and maintain management
measures. With LID, every site feature is multifunctional (green space, landscaping, grading, streetscapes, roads,
parking lots) and optimized to reduce stormwater impacts or provide / maintain beneficial hydrologic functions.

The effective use of LID site design techniques can significantly reduce the cost of providing stormwater
management. Savings are achieved by eliminating the use of stormwater management ponds, reducing pipes, inlet
structures, curbs and gutters, less roadway paving, less grading and clearing. Where LID techniques are applicable
and depending on the type of development and site constraints, stormwater and site development design
construction and maintenance costs can be reduced by 25 % to 30% compared to conventional approaches.

The creation of LID's wide array micro-scale management principles and practices has lead to the development of
new tools to retrofit existing urban development. Micro-scale management practices to filter, retain and detain
runoff can be easily integrated into the existing green space and streetscapes as part of the routine maintenance and
repair of urban infrastructure. LID retrofit techniques may lead to drastic reductions in the cost of retrofitting

7

-------
existing urban development. Reducing urban retrofit costs will increase the ability of cities to implement effective
retrofit programs to reduce the frequency and improve the quality of CSO's, wet weather flows and improve the
quality of urban runoff to protect receiving waters and resources. LID represents a radically different approach to
controlling stormwater runoff that provides effective tools to restore or maintain a watershed's hydrologic functions
for new or existing development.

In 1998 EPA provided grant funding to assist PGDER in their efforts to develop a general manual of LID's
principles and practices and share this technology with other local governments throughout the nation. Efforts are
currently underway with EPA to further advance LID technology by improve the sensitivity of current hydrology
and hydraulic analytical models for application with small watershed and sites and to develop new micro-scale
control approaches and practices for urban retrofit. Additional efforts are also underway to demonstrate how LID
micro-scale management and multifunctional infrastructure principles and practices can be used to control
highway runoff within existing rights-of-way. It is hoped that the LID national manual will help to stimulate
debate on the state of current stormwater, watershed protection and restoration technology and its future direction.
Copies of the Prince George's LID design manual, the national LID guidance manual and information on
bioretention can be obtained by calling Prince George's County's Department of Environmental Resources at (301)
883-5832.

8

-------
Residential Nutrient Behaviors in the Chesapeake Bay
Thomas Schueler, Center for Watershed Protection

It is a maxim of watershed science that every resident is personally responsible for contributing some of the pollutants
that runoff our lawns, streets and parking lots. Runoff pollution is the major cause of water quality problems in most
urban watersheds. While runoff pollution is not sudden or dramatic, it leads to the gradual degradation of urban waters
-- degraded streams, eutrophic lakes, closed beaches and shellfish beds, and polluted drinking water supplies.

It is a curious tendency of our species, however, that when we study urban watersheds, we rarely study ourselves, and
we seldom take the trouble to measure the cumulative impact of our individual behaviors on the watershed. A recent
study by the Center for Watershed Protection examined the prevalence of several nutrient-producing behaviors in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and what role education may play in changing those behaviors.

Lawn fertilization is among the most widespread watershed behaviors we engage in. In our survey of resident attitudes
in the Chesapeake Bay, 89% of citizens owned a yard, and of these, about fifty percent applied fertilizer every year.
The study also indicated that in the Chesapeake Bay, a significant fraction (52%) of homeowners can be classified as
flover-fertilizers® who apply fertilizers to their lawns two or more times a year.

In our survey of Chesapeake Bay residents, we found about 40% of households own a dog, and just about half of all
dog owners actually walk their dog. Of the half that do walk their dog, about 60% claim to pick up after their dog and
of these, 44% would not cleanup even with fine, complaints, collection or disposal methods

About one in four households in America rely on septic systems to dispose of their wastewater. . Depending on soil
conditions and other factors, septic systems have a failure rate ranging from 5 to 35%, which discharges un-treated
or partially treated wastewater into groundwater (Schueler, 1999). Even properly operating septic systems can produce
elevated nutrient levels in shallow groundwater, which can degrade coastal and lake water quality (Ohrel, 1995).

Until recently, homeowner awareness about septic system maintenance was poorly understood. The Chesapeake Bay
survey was one of the first to examine how frequently residents maintain their septic systems. An interesting finding
from the survey was the advanced age of the average septic system in the ground ~ about 27 years or about seven years
beyond the design life of an un-maintained system. Roughly half of the owners were classified as Aseptic slackers® as
they indicated that they had not inspected or cleaned out their system in last three years (which is the minimum
recommended frequency).

Septic systems are a classic case of flout of sight, out of mind.® A small but significant fraction (12%) of septic system
owners had no idea where their septic system was located on their property. In addition, only 42% of septic system
owners had ever requested advice on how to maintain their septic system, and these owners relied primarily on the
private sector for this advice (e.g., pumping service, contractors, and plumbers). Like many other watershed behaviors,
there was a sharp difference between residents attitudes and their actual practice. For example, while 70% of septic
system owners agreed with the statement that flinspection and routine clean out of septic systems is necessary to protect
water quality in the Chesapeake Bay,® over half had not done so in the last three years.

Watershed education is the primary tool needed to change these behaviors. The basic premise of watershed education
is that we must learn two things ~ that we live in a watershed and how to properly live within it.

A handful of communities have attempted to craft watershed education programs in recent years to influence our
watershed behaviors. Many more will need to develop programs in the coming years to comply with pending EPA
municipal stormwater NPDES regulations. Indeed, half of the six minimum management measures prescribed under
these regulations directly deal with watershed education B pollution prevention, public outreach and public
involvement. Yet, many communities have no idea what kind of message to send, or what kind of media to send it out.

Watershed managers need to send a clear and simple educational message that can attract the attention of the average
citizen who is simultaneously bombarded by dozens of competing messages every day. A number of surveys have asked
residents which outreach techniques are most influential in attracting their attention, and messages sent through

9

-------
television, radio and local newspapers were consistently more influential in reaching residents than any other
technique, with up to 30% recall rates by the watershed population for each technique. By contrast, messages
transmitted through more traditional outreach techniques such as meetings, brochures, local cable and videos tend to
be recalled by only a very small segment of the watershed population.

Crafting Better Watershed Education Programs.

The first step in crafting better watershed education programs is to compile some baseline information on local
awareness, behaviors and media preferences. Some of the key questions watershed managers should consider are:

Is the typical individual aware of water quality issues in the watershed they live in?

Is the individual or household behavior directly linked to water quality problems ?

Is the behavior widely prevalent in the watershed population ?

Do specific alternative(s) to the behavior exist that might reduce pollution?

What is the most clear and direct message about these alternatives?

What outreach methods are most effective in getting the message out ?

How much individual behavior change can be expected from these outreach techniques?

Perhaps the most critical step in crafting an education program is to select the right outreach techniques to send the
watershed message. Several communities have recently undertaken before and after surveys to measure how well the
public responds to their watershed education programs. From this research, two outreach techniques have shown some
promise in actually changing behavior B media campaigns and intensive training. Media campaigns typically use a
mix of radio, TV, direct mail, and signs to broadcast a general watershed message to a large audience. Intensive
training use workshops, consultation and guidebooks to send a much more complex message about watershed behavior
to a smaller and more interested audience. Intensive training requires a substantial time commitment from residents
of a few hours or more.

Both media campaigns and intensive training can produce up to a 10 to 20% improvement in selected watershed
behaviors among their respective target populations.

Other important considerations for effectively marketing a watershed message are to:

Develop a stronger connection between the yard, the street, the storm and the stream.

Form regional media campaigns.

Use television wisely.

Understand the demographics of your watershed.

Keep the watershed message simple and funny.

Make information packets small, slick and durable.

Educate private sector allies.

All the numbers presented in this article were derived from a recent Center for Watershed Protection report entitled
AA Survey of Residential Nutrient Behavior in the Chesapeake Bay®. To order a copy of the report, call the Center at
(410) 461-8323 or go to our website at www.cwp.org.

References Cited

Ohrel, R. 1995. Dealing with Septic System Impacts. Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(1): 265-272.

Schueler, T. 1999. Microbes in urban watersheds. Watershed Protection Techniques. 3(1): 551-600.

Swann, C. 1999. A survey of residential nutrient behaviors in the Chesapeake Bay. Widener-Burrows, Inc. Chesapeake
Research Consortium. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. 112 pp.

Toxics Non-point Source Issues and Interests

10

-------
Kelly Eisenman, Toxics Subcommittee Coordinator

The Toxics Subcommittee is reevaluating and revising its 1994 Toxics Strategy. Through discussions with
stakeholders, it has become clear that efforts to reduce nonpoint source loadings of chemical contaminants need to
be increased.

Nonpoint sources of contaminant loads, particularly urban stormwater runoff, represent a substantial
source of contaminants to the Bay.

Pesticide loads to the Bay and tidal rivers are largely unknown.

This management shift will be a theme in the Toxics 2000 Strategy. Presently, the Toxics Subcommittee is
concluding talks nonpoint source stakeholders from stormwater management and pesticide management programs
at the state and local levels to obtain guidance on the role of the Bay Program for nonpoint source chemical
contaminant management issues. These stakeholder talks will help to draft commitments for the revised Toxics
2000 Strategy

One possible commitment, which came from discussions with urban/suburban stormwater managers, is to establish
a Task Force to coordinate federal, state, regional, and local storm water management programs, both voluntary
and mandatory, to ensure the development of a comprehensive, prioritized water quality and watershed focus by
2001. The Task Force will develop recommendations to Bay States by 2002. The Task Force will make
recommendations to integrate stormwater management programs to reflect an integrated approach for chemical
contaminants, nutrient and sediment programs, while eliminating duplication and increasing coordination of these
programs.

Another draft commitment that is being considered in the revised Toxics 2000 Strategy is "By 2010, reduce the
chemical contaminant loads associated with stormwater runoff throughout the Bay watershed to sufficiently
eliminate toxic impacts to living resources and to protect and restore tidal and non-tidal aquatic stream and Bay
habitats."

The coordination of workgroups or a new urban workgroup will help to address the many cross-cutting
commitments in the Bay Agreement as well as improving the cost effectiveness and function of workgroups
addressing the urban target audiences. One option for the Bay Program may be to make this shift.

11

-------
SUMMARY OF IDEAS FROM THE BREAKOUT SESSIONS

Participants assembled into breakout groups to discuss opportunities for nutrient reduction from existing or new
development. They reconvened to assess the role of the Chesapeake Bay Program relative to other parties. Below
are the results. The areas where the Chesapeake Bay Program is thought to have responsibilities is marked with an
asterisk.

Local Government

Promote the use of low impact development techniques such as better site design, retrofitting of
impervious areas, redevelopment vs. new development, demonstration projects for both structural and
non-structural practices.*

Provide tax incentives.*

Review and revise local codes/ordinances to improve site design and stormwater management, through
more local round tables.*

Reduce and mange growth by promoting infill and transportation that facilitates concentrated growth.
Enhance cities urban renewal approaches to include programs and techniques that manage, treat and reuse
rainfall/runoff*

More resources are needed at local levels to support stormwater and watershed managment.*

Integrate strict BMP maintenance standards and multiple pollutant targeting into BMP design and
stormwater programs.*

Be able to track all BMP implementation for Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model use.*

Remove legal impediments to implementation of urban BMPs by revising ordinances and developing new
regulation ordinances.

Prioritize NPS reduction efforts at state and local level for both funding and regulation to those efforts
with the best demonstrated cost benefit ratios.

Educate homeowners on nutrient reduction techniques such as lawn care, septic system maintenance.
Provide incentives or develop mandatory septic pump out for waterfront property owners every 3-5 years.*
Enforce regulations on buffer requirements, rehabilitate riparian buffers and stabilize channels and
shorelines.

State Government

Better educate state and local politicians, key agencies, community/neighborhood/ watershed
associations.*

Develop flexible regulations that would encourage innovative approaches to reducing urban non-point
source pollution.

Overcome conflicting codes/ordinances for effective pollution control and prevention.

Increase flexibility in state transportation designs.

Promote growth in already developed areas to relieve pressure in rural areas and preserve green space.
Promote better site design in developing areas to reduce nutrient loading through model ordinances.*
Create incentives for providing better water quality in existing urban areas. *

State and local relationships need to be improved through removing barriers to local government for using
innovative stormwater techniques and modifying necessary ordinances.

Provide financial support, i.e. a state revolving fund for demonstrating various techniques, market
economic benefits of sustainable developments, and provide resources for local programs including
technical assistance.*

Improve stormwater criteria in Phase I, Phase II permitting. State oversight on local regulations for
minimum requirements.

Educate the consulting and land development communities about economic benefits of sound, efficient,
environmentally friendly design. Create a competitive environment for developers top market
environmental/economic stewardship benefits.*

Educate public on proper seasonal use of fertilizer.

Promote labeling fertilizer bags. *

Focus on "regions of concern" to target stormwater hot spots, also local and federal involvement.*

12

-------
Establish funding support for implementation of BMPs plus establish credits and other
incentives/disincentives to implementing BMPs.

When developing new state stormwater regulations, integrate the "impervious surface and reduction" goal
as much as possible.

Regional Government

Develop multi-jurisdictional agreements to provide framework (guideline) of urban issues and potentials.
Provide a forum for various local governments to discuss results/demos/etc. Of better site design,
innovative BMPs.*

Gain increased understanding of required BMP maintenance (approaches, cycles).

Provide funding support and commitment for ordinance development, education efforts, demonstration

projects and research/monitoring.*

Integrate stormwater and watershed management into transportation planning at the regional level.
Encourage LID practices for new and redevelopment projects.

Maintaining practices - (local vs. regional) Regional property owner associations to maintain stormwater
systems.*

Provide "Madison Avenue" educational approach to help states improve presentation of new initiatives.
Federal Government

Make more resources available for water quality protection: pay for the mandates, provide financial
incentives.

Encourage regulators flexibility at all levels of government.*

Provide funding opportunities to state and local governments to implement stormwater programs/retrofits.

Increase funding to Master Gardener program which will multiply number of "peer volunteers" teaching

about nutrient application and turf reduction.

Fund educations programs that rival Scotts for nutrient management.

Garner federal financial support for large-scale SSO/CSO remediation.

Use pollution prevention to keep nitrogen out of rainwater (reduce air pollution from utilities, industries,
and mobile sources).

Chesapeake Bay Program

Provide greater financial support to address urban non-point source strategies.

Re-prioritize funding to provide money to education and outreach in the form of a Madison Avenue

advertising campaign using radio and newspaper.

Promote training and outreach on stormwater management and better site design.

Support pilot programs that demonstrate innovative techniques and the use of structural and non-
structural BMPs.

Better coordinate/communicate between subcommittee workgroups with similar focus, i.e. MTP of LGSS
and UWG of NSC.

Improve BMP standards to receive maximum benefit.

Fund research and monitoring of various urban BMPs for efficiency, i.e. removal of nutrients, toxics,
sediment, etc.

Improve the linkage between local and downstream water quality and stream benefits.

Develop a private sector (business advisory committee.

Fund review of model ordinances in case study communities.

Get all stormwater management programs in the watershed, including state and federal government, on
the same page in terms of regulatory requirements.

Establish a mulit-jurisdictional multi-governmental group to coordinate stormwater programs, remove

barriers, and develop water quality focus.

Prioritize reductions by loading rate and cost of removal.

Develop a better understanding of nutrient loadings on a regional and source basis within the urban
sector.

Research and Educational Organizations

13

-------
Provide scientific evaluations on BMPs and pollution prevention methods.

Do more research on economic impacts of polluting behavior and economic benefits of pollution

prevention and various approaches.*

Continue research on the combination of environmental and economic benefits of sustainable
development. The results should be made understandable and accessible.*

Provide education and outreach to the public, planning and zoning boards on urban non-point source
pollution effects and measures that they can take to reduce it.

Research design and performance of BMPs, non structural methods and septic system effects.

Recognize the importance of the multi-media effect "robbing Peter to pay Paul".*

Encourage the development of technologies that deal with multiple pollutants.*

Identify technological barriers to BMP pollutant removal efficiencies and develop new technologies to
address them.

Investigate trading and offsets or pollution taxes. *

Get the higher educational institutions to play an active role in incorporating BMP design and

conservation practices into Civil Engineering curriculum.*

Education of individuals, local governments and consulting engineers.*

Develop larger database of the economic and environmental benefits of stormwater management.*

Community Organizations

Educate local leaders about the benefits of urban non-point source nutrient pollution and impervious
surface reduction.

Improve business outreach efforts by creating a list of communities where developers have used better site
design techniques.

Organize business partnerships to reduce nutrient and other non-point source inputs. One example would
be strip mall mangers who redirect landscape money to rain garden type measures or pooling money for
advertising campaign.

Increase community organization participation by encouraging citizen stewardship for ecological
awareness, pollution prevention and monitoring. Use signs for streams similar to "Adopt-A-Highway"
program.

Individuals

Change behavior to reduce nutrient pollution, i.e. reduce runoff, reduce lawn size, pet clean-up.* Also in
areas such as recreation, workplace, market place, etc.

Reduce fertilizer and pesticide use through POS displays and education of retailers.*

Educate homeowners about proper fertilization rates. *

Others

Private Industry

~	Provide incentives for developers, industry and architects.

Education Programs

~	Environmental design

~	Local water quality and watershed awareness should be taught to citizens through school and
workplace.

Work with engineering organizations, landscape architectural organizations and local surveyor groups.
Integrate LID into associated curriculums.*

Utilize news station weather reports to introduce ideas to the public on how personal actions contribute to
NPS pollution.*

14

-------
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

Participants were asked to answer the following questions. What should be done as a follow-up action by the
Chesapeake Bay Program? Who should be responsible? And by when should it be accomplished or implemented?
Suggestions are broken into the categories of funding; local government and local needs; media and outreach; CBP
structure; and BMPs, site design and technologies.

Funding

l-ollow-up Aclioii

Responsible lJail>

liiipleiiieiilalioii and or
Completion Dale

Research funding possibilities for CBP "Madison
Avenue" media blitz.

Possibly a CBP Fellow; an
established environmental
financing organization like
MD Sea Grant (funded by
CBP)

Accomplish by 2002.
Implement by 2003.

Develop a funding allocation philosophy (BNR went
nowhere until state grants were implemented). CBP
should develop a funding philosophy/strategy/options
for states to consider (capital and ongoing
maintenance).

Ad hoc group reporting to
theIC

12 months for
recommendations; 24
months for
implementation

Explore opportunities for funding and conduct a cost
benefit analysis to determine who should get the
money and how it should be distributed.

CBP in conjunction with
other research groups to do
the cost-benefit analysis



Continue to fund and expand funding to states to
promote environmental site design approach.

CBP



Fund pilot projects on education and outreach,
innovative techniques for regional stormwater
management to benefit state and local government.

CBP



Additional funding from EPA passed to states and
local government to improve state and local
stormwater management and erosion and sediment
control programs.



ongoing

Fund and establish a retrofit program for existing
development.

States

ASAP

Summarize Forum

15

-------
l-ollow -lip AcllOll

Responsible lJail>

liiipleiiieiilalioii and or
Completion Dale

Compile and categorize priority issues discussed at
the forum and develop into a survey form. Distribute
to local governments, state agencies, developers,
industries, homeowners and contractors for return.
Compile, analyze and distribute to participants for
future direction, action and focus.

CBP staff with assistance
from participants

October 1, 2000

Identify needs of local governments and businesses to
effectively implement local NPS programs. Develop
strategy to overcome through Bay programs.

Subcommittees and
workgroups

September 1, 2000

CBP could initiate discussions with local
governments and regional governments to identify
barriers in implementing low impact development
and discover ways that the CBP could support these
efforts (i.e. educating to provide information on the
problem and opportunities).

CBP

ASAP (ongoing)

CBP needs to bring about a forum with local
governments to determine the best strategies to
implement nutrient reduction by structural and non-
structural (educational) means, and address funding
mechanisms.

CBP would be responsible
for organizing a forum

Next 6 months

Work with local governments to develop incentives
for retrofitting older developed areas, and holding
any new area to a high standard of stormwater
management innovation and bay friendliness.

CBP

End of 2001

Develop a sense of responsibility among Chesapeake
Bay residents. They are truly responsible for any
actions they take that may degrade or improve the
environment around them.

CBP could mount a
campaign to get the
message out extensively

Implement ASAP,
ongoing effort

Outreach to local governments to offer assistance,
support, and partnerships.



Initial outreach by May
1; Follow up starting
June 1

Establish direct communication with local
government to assist with implementing nutrient
reduction requirements, provide needed educational
and technical assistance.

CBP subcommittees or IC

Accomplish by
beginning of 2001;
Implement by 2001

Identify the needs of local CBP communities to
implement BMPs (especially LID and conservation
types) and prioritize actions to meet needs.

Identification must be by
subcommittees or
committees, so priorities
should be part of their
efforts too

Prior to Phase 2 NPDES
stormwater permitting

Bring in local government.

CBP

6 months

16

-------
Work with local governments to improve barriers to
better site design (e.g. review and changing local
codes).

NSC, LGSS

ongoing

Prioritize which components of urban runoff to
reduce first. Partner with federal-state-private to
educate targeted public to reduce the prioritized
component. Measure the reduced contribution of the
targeted-prioritized component. Target local areas.

CBP, states, federal
government, businesses

Start now. Complete by
2005.

Survey different groups (federal, state, local
government, community groups) for their own
planned initiatives and strategies. Assemble this
information and recognize overlaps with the
initiative identified today and build on those
strategies to drive forward.

CBP

Accomplish by June
2000; Implement/
support by January 2001

Media and Outreach

l-ollow-up Aclioii

Responsible lJail>

liiipleiiieiilalioii and or
Completion Dale

Coordinate "Madison Avenue" media campaign on a
regional level.

CBP could coordinate a
working group, including
private sector, to develop
specifics.

Accomplish by 2002;
Implement by 2003

Develop media campaign on the impacts of urban
NPS pollution and what actions individuals,
community groups, local politicians can take to help.
Include economic and environmental benefits of
these actions. Include CBP website and then tailor
website to focus on different audiences (citizens,
developers, local governments, federal agencies)

CBP

Accomplish a study by
2001. Implement in
2002 radio ads, movie
trailers, TV
commercials.

Increase improvement of education/outreach, a.k.a.
mass media marketing targeting audiences.

CBF, CBP and others to
pool resources

ASAP

Develop outreach/educational programs targeted at
the following groups: a) local elected officials, b)
state/local governments, c) individuals, d)
developers. Educational material should include:
new technologies, local/state reps, ordinances, facts
for elected officials, geographical localities
identifying areas of concern.

CBP, state and local
government

representatives; Specific
group dedicated to this task
(EPA, state, local
government)



Develop a planned media campaign that addresses
various "target" results and geographies, and is
effective.

ACB

Plan developed in one
year; Multi-year
campaign implemented
over a 2 - 3 year period

17

-------
Continue to educate citizens on water quality issues
and what each citizen can do, on their own, to reduce
their nutrient load in their community.

CBP can do a media (TV,
radio, billboards) education.
Cooperative Extension can
do individual or community
group education.

The media blitz should
occur in the spring,
when folks flock to the
stores to buy fertilizer
for their lawns (this is
when they should not
apply fertilizer) and in
the late fall (when they
should). Education to
citizens in group
meetings should occur
at the same time.

Implement a bay-wide education and outreach
program targeted at the most significant potential
pollutant source categories - developers/contractors/
MS4's.

CBP in partnership with
trade associations e.g.
NAHB, ASWIPCA, NACO

Timing to watch Phase
2 stormwater permit
process

CBP should develop a plan and structure to
implement an education program that is both well
funded and has a long term commitment. This
should be a media approach.

CBP should identify who is
the most appropriate as a
responsible entity.

ASAP

Better public relations...media blitz!

Funded by CBP.

Ongoing

A public awareness campaign (no brochures).

CBP to organize; possibly
done by NSC or a fellow

Accomplished within
the year and then
continued

Develop a plan which addresses all of the gaps and
barriers to expanding urban NPS control. Steps
include: PR campaign addressing economic and
environmental benefits, innovative approaches, help
to remove barriers, promote fund, assist, support.

Nutrient Subcommittee
(NSC) in coordination with
other subcommittees

Plan completed by
1/1/2001, PR campaign
soon thereafter
(technical assistance
manual distributed
simultaneously)

Develop a clearing house, sharing of information
among bay state and entire country or world.

CBP

Ongoing

Enhanced outreach/education through the media to
the public.

Joint CBP and local
governments

ASAP

Summarize Forum

l-ollow-up Aclioii

Responsible lJail>

liiipleiiieiilalioii and or
Completion Dale

Provide a summary of this forum to committees that
are currently in place to address CBP issues on a
regional basis. Committees can then make
recommendations for moving forward.

The CBP office should take
the lead on this effort in the
form of existing
committees.

Provide information to
committees and allow
them to review and
respond by the end of
summer 2000.

18

-------
Provide a summary to workshop participants.
Reconvene another meeting to establish a n action
plan.

CBP, NSC, and expanded
Urban Workgroup (UWG)

By the end of March
2000

Write up the proceedings consisting of
recommendations.

EPA staff, request NSC and
LGSS review

April 1, 2000

Use forum results/discussion to evaluate re-orienting
urban water quality. Key focus should be
education/marketing, without that, behaviors won't
change. Provide continuing state of science
information on cost benefit, BMPs, and tracking to
CBP partners and localities.

NSC/UWG discuss with
other appropriate
subcommittees and
workgroups.

6 months and
continuing

CBP Structure

l-ollow-up Aclioii

Responsible lJail>

liiipleiiieiilalioii and or
Completion Dale

Convene an ad hoc group to assess how regulatory
programs (MS4 permits; development-site criteria;
SW management requirements for new and re-
development) can better mesh with CBP goals.
Make specific recommendations for state
consideration (state, local government and
appropriate business representatives).

NSC

12 months to deliver
recommendations; 12 to
24 months (ongoing) for
implementation
SW regulations and
permit conditions
(state); Site
development criteria
(local)

Reorganize the CBP workgroups to focus urban
workgroup on issues supporting all subcommittees.

Workgroup and
subcommittee chairs, CBP
fellows, staff, etc.

Accomplish by May 1;
Implement by July 1,
2000

Increase communication between CBP workgroups,
etc. and sectors of government to achieve integrated
WQ improvements. A.K.A. nutrient urban
workgroup have representation or change focus to
represent needs of Living resources, Toxics,
Nutrients, LGSS, and monitoring subcommittees.
Reform various workgroups to reach complimenting
goals.

Nutrient Urban Workgroup

ASAP

Integrate all urban based concerns into one
workgroup, do this with all subcommittees.

CBPO, MD, VA, PA

begin in 2000

Develop list of what CBP can do to: 1) achieve
pollutant ( nutrient, sediment, toxics) reduction, 2) to
support local governments in achieving pollution
reduction. Consider how to better organize to ensure
coordinated approach among LGSS, NSC, TSC
urban workgroup.

Core urban forum planners;
All attendees review draft

Draft proposal March
20; Group comment in
April; Final draft by
May

19

-------
Recruit more members (from today's forum
attendance) for urban workgroup and expand
focus/activities to deal with list of issues
(sediment/solids/septics, CAP, etc.)

NSC/UWG staff and chairs

Develop criteria by
March prior to next
UWG meeting.

Assess/improve coordination/communication links
between key workgroups/subcommittees with similar
or over lapping agendas (e.g. MTP of LGSS and
UWG of NSC).

UWG/NSC and MTP/LGSS
staff and chairs (but should
be assumed for other groups
as well)

Within the next month
before the next UWG
meeting

Better coordination (not necessarily consolidation) of
CBP efforts to promote nutrient reduction in urban
areas. (This may be done by having pertinent
workgroups work more closely together.)

NSC, LGSS, TS

By 2001

Better coordination of committees and programs in
CBP concerning urban/suburban development
(developing lands). Coordinate existing regulatory
programs in EPA.



Ongoing

Develop a business/development advisory group on
urban non-point source issues (perhaps a local
government group as well).

NSC and TSC working
with IC

By the end of 2000

BMPs, Site Design and Technologies

l-ollow-up Aclioii

Responsible lJail>

liiipleiiieiilalioii and or
Completion Dale

Pursue cost-effective BMPs (prototype development,
field testing and reporting). Work to integrate
maintenance into both design/applications and
watershed programs, without this the best practices
will not be cost-effective.

The Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP) should
work with local
governments to pursue and
accomplish goals.

Work through existing
committees and create a
new forum as necessary
to get this implemented
ASAP.

Develop a benefit and cost analysis protocol for non-
point source mitigation.

Software exists and a
contractor can specialize it
for CBP's needs

ASAP

Promote treatment at the source. Provide incentives
for home owners, commercial, industry, institutional.

Everyone

ASAP

Keep tools (WSM) current for new and current urban
BMPs and their efficiencies.

All jurisdictions through
input in TSWG and other
relevant workgroups.

Ongoing

20

-------
LIST OF REGISTRANTS

Jack Anderson

Baltimore Metropolitan Council
601 North Howard St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
jya	jjJtomrtro.org

I^^P33^5Fe^2l7~
F: (410)659-1260

Marc Aveni

VA Cooperative Extension
8033 Ashton Ave., Suite 105
Manassas, VA 20109-8202

P: (703)792-4632
F: (703)792-4630

Joseph Battiata
VADCR

203 Governor St., Suite 206
Richmond, VA 23111

P: (804)371-7492
F: (804)371-2630

Doug Beisch, Jr.

CBLAD

101 N. 14th St.., 17th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219

P: (804)-371-7506

Stacy Blersch
DC EHA/WPD
51 N St. NE, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20002

si? icrscii:tf rriiiii.crivirori.stiitc.dc.p s
P: (202)535-2691
F: (202)535-1364

Dave Bourdon

Prince George's Soil Conservation District
Rm 1101, County Administration Bldg.
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Dr.

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

P: (301)574-5162
F: (301)574-5156

Michael Bowman
VADCR

3800 Stillman Pkwy, Suite 102
Richmond. VA 23233

527-44 jjJ-————

F: (804)527-4483

Rick Brush
Montgomery County
255 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20850

P: (240)777-6343
F: (240)777-6339

Walter K. Caldwell

DC Office of Watershed Protection

51NSt. NE

Washington, DC 20009

P: (202)535-2981
F: (202)535-1364

Earle Canter
MDA

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy
Annapolis, MD 21401

C llll tc ri¥IC:tf 111 c! stiitcs 111 c! s 11 s
P: (410)841-5959
F: (410)841-5950

Debbie Cappuccitti
MDE

2500 Broening Hwy.

Baltimore, MD 21044

P: (410)631-3535
F: (410)631-3553

John Carlock

Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
723 Woodlake Dr.

Chesapeake, VA 23320

ica rietc k-'ii- li 111 ilr ci r«"

	 	 	ax

P: (757)420-8300
F: (757)-523-4881

21

-------
Larry Coffman

Programs and Planning Division

Prince George's County

Dept. of Environmental Resources

P: (301)883-5839

Robert Cooper
VADCR

3800 Stillman Pkwy., Suite 102
Richmond, VA 23233

fCCOO

P?'

Matthew Criblez

Rappahonock Watershed Manager
VADCR

2607 Princess Anne St., Suite 101
Fredricksburg, VA 22401

P: (540)899-4074

Darin Crew

CRC Toxic Subcommittee Fellow
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403

P: (410)267-9860
F: (410)267-5777

Scott Crafton
VA CBLAD

101 N. 14th St., 17th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219

P: (804)371-7503
F: (804)225-3447

Amy Decker

CRC Nutrient Subcommittee Fellow
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403

P: (410)267-5726
F: (410)267-5777

Kelly Eisenman

US EPA/CBPO

410 Severn Ave., Suite 109

Annapolis, MD 21403

eisenman.kelly#epa.gov

P: (410)267-5728

F: (410)267-5777

Gary Felton
U of MD

Biol. Resources Engineering
College Park, MD 20742

P: (301)405-8039

Rod Fredrick
US EPA

4503-F, 410 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460

P: (202)260-7054
F: (202)260-7024

Larry Gavan
T.E.S. Dept.

Box 178-City Hall
Alexandria, VA 22313

P: (703)519-3400 ext. 188
F: (703)838-6438

Edward Graham
MWCOG

777 North Capitol St. NE
Suite 300

Washington, DC 20002

t g nt ii it in; in w € ci g> ci rg

F: (202)962-3201

Beth Hickey
UMDEFC
0112 Skinner
College Park, MD 20742

P: (301)405-6383
F: (301)314-9581

Will Hunley

Hampton Roads Sanitation District

1436 Air Rail Ave.

Virginia Beach, VA 23471-0911

w liu ii Icv'ii/ li rscLc! stL vs* u s
P: (757)460-4252
F: (757)460-2372

22

-------
Tim Karikari
DC DOH/EHA
51 N St. NE, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20002

P: (202)535-2248
F: (202)535-1364

Durla Lathia

PA DEP, Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
P.O. Box 855
Harrisburg, PA 17105

P: (717)772-5665

Marya Levelev
MDE

2500 Broening Hwy.
Baltimore, MD 21214

P: (410)631-3720
F: (410)631-3445

Daniel Lucid
MD DNR

Tawes State Office Bldg.
Annapolis, MD 21401

P: (410)260-8726

Wanda MacLachlan
Maryland Cooperative Extension
11975 Homewood Road
Ellicot City, MD 21044-3813

P: (410)531-5973
F: (301)596-9632

Menchu Martinez
US EPA/CBPO
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403

P: (410)267-5704
F: (410)267-5777

L. Kenneth Pensyl III
MDE

2500 Broening Hwy.

Baltimore, MD 21224

lip en s ¥ i' ii/ ill c! £s st ntcs ill c! s u s
P: (410)631-3543
F: (410)631-3553

Jake Porter
VADCR
203 Governor St.

Richmond, VA 23219

P: (804)786-3997
F: (804)371-2630

Collin Powers
VADEQ

Chesapeake Bay Office, 6th Floor
629 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219

P: (804)698-4324
F: (804)698-4319

Fred Rose

Fairfax County, DPWES

12000 Government Center Pkwy., Suite 449

Fairfax, VA 22035

P: (703) 324-5800
F: (703)324-4365

Adrian Schagrin
City of Fairfax, VA
10455 Armstrong St.

Fairfax, VA 22030

P: (703) 385-7816
F: (703)591-5727

Suzanne Schenkel
NRCS East Region Office
5601 Sunnyside Ave.

Beltville, MD 20705-5410

sums	,ircs»HSt|a»giy

F: (301)504-2291

Thomas Schueler
Center for Watershed Protection
8319 Main St.

Ellicott City, MD 21043
org

P: (410)-461-8323

Mary Searing
MD DNR

Tawes State Office Bldg., F-2
Annapolis, MD 21401

P: (410)260-8788

23

-------
Randy Shank

VA Cooperative Extension
VADCR

203Governor St., Suite 206
Richmond, VA 23219

P: (804)371-8884
F: (804)371-2630

Dave Shepp
MWCOG

777 N. Capitol St. NE
Washington, DC 20002

P: (202)962-3349
F: (202)962-3201

John Sherwell
MD DNR

Tawes State Office Bldg. B-3
Annapolis, MD 21401

SllCfWCl

sialic.

(410)260-8667
(410)260-8670

Tom Simpson
MDA CB Ag. Programs
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401

Julie Trask

CRC Nutrient Subcommittee Fellow
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403

P: (410)267-5753
F: (410)267-5777

Suzy Wald
DC EHA/WPD
51NSt. NE
Washington, DC 20002

'.statc.uc.il s

(202)535-2252
(202)535-1364

Richard Weismiller
NRSL

2102 Plant Sciences Bldg.
U of MD

College Park, MD 20742

P: (301)405-1306
F: (301)314-9308

Debbie Weller
MD Office of Planning
301 W. Preston St.
Baltimore, MD 21201-2305

P: (410)841-5889	P: (410)767-4562

F: (410)841-5736	F: (410)767-4480

Chris Swann

Center for Watershed Protection

8391 Main St.

Ellicott City, MD 21043

P: (410)461-8323

Julie Thomas
US EPA/CBPO
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403

11	:.2S!

P: (410)267-9848
F: (410)267-5777

24

-------
25

-------