Urban Stormwater Workgroup Conference Call October 24, 2007 Highlights and Action Items • Workgroup members should provide Sarah Weammert, sweammer@umd.edu. with answers to the six questions posed by UMD/MAWP by November 1st. • The workgroup needs to decide on 3-4 subcategories for each year 2 urban BMP. Once Sarah receives answers to the six questions from the jurisdictions, she will compile those answers and distribute them to the workgroup. The workgroup can then use those answers to help them come up with the subcategories. This issue will be discussed at the workgroup's next meeting/conference call. • The workgroup's review of the Phase 2 definitions and efficiencies will begin on May 1, 2008. Handouts • Phase 2 Process for the UMD/MAWP BMP Project • Overview of Tributary Strategies Minutes • The conference call began at 10:10 am. Introductions were made and the meeting's agenda was reviewed. • The purpose of this meeting was to discuss phase 2 of the UMD/MAWP BMP project. Sarah Weammert, UMD, led the discussion. • UMD/MAWP is starting phase 2 of their BMP project. The process that will be followed during this phase is slightly different from the process that was followed in year 1. • Year 2 urban BMPs: o Dirt & gravel road erosion & sediment control o Infiltration and filtration practices o [CORRECTION: Non-urban stream restoration was listed as an urban BMP in the handout, but it should have been listed as an agricultural BMP] • To avoid last minute decision making and to allow more time for discussion, UMD/MAWP will be asking for workgroup input throughout the process, focusing in on the beginning of practice development. • Unless issues arise, UMD/MAWP does not plan on coming back to the workgroups for formal in-depth discussions until the middle of May. Instead, Sarah will provide more detailed quarterly reports to the PI (Kelly Shenk), which will then be forwarded to workgroup members. • Step 1: Collect technical information from Chesapeake Bay Program partners o UMD/MAWP is asking source area workgroups for literature and their knowledge of technical issues pertaining to each BMP. o Questions that UMD/MAWP has asked workgroup members to answer: 1. What literature, citations, or reports do you recommend UMD/MAWP review? 1 ------- 2. Who do you suggest UMD/MAWP consider to serve as the developer for Year Two BMPs? Who do you recommend participate in a review of the developers' recommendation? 3. When a Year Two BMP was developed and included in your Tributary Strategy, how was the BMP defined? What does the practice entail? Please provide the documentation you have and/or list components of the practice. 4. How did you arrive at the 'placeholder' effectiveness used to run management scenarios in the Bay Program Watershed Model? 5. How do you intend to track, and how will you measure, the BMP (ex. number of cows versus number of acres)? 6. Are there Year Two BMPs being implemented in your jurisdiction that are not in your Tributary Strategy and/or being reported? If yes, what are they and how are they defined? What does the practice entail, what are its components? Knowledge of how these BMPs are designed will be helpful in future years as jurisdictions begin to report these BMPs and seek credit. o Question 6 was added after this information was presented to the NSC at their September meeting, o It was suggested that information on lifespan and performance also be submitted to Sarah, o Answers to these questions are due to Sarah (sweammer@umd.edu) by November 1st. o Lee Hill told Sarah that there are practices listed in VA's stormwater manual that are not included. Lee agreed to break out those practices and send them to her. Sarah is only interested in practices that fall under phase 2 urban BMPs. o The Bay Program does not currently have any definitions distinguishing non- urban and urban stream restoration, o After Sarah receives the answers to these questions, she will meet with Jeff Sweeney to discuss how these efficiencies will be applied in the model. Step 2: Develop a decision matrix o UMD/MAWP will develop a decision matrix that will provide guidelines for effectiveness estimates. The objective is to fairly critique practice effectiveness across all practices and sectors, o This matrix will be developed in consultation with the NSC and its workgroups. o A draft version will be available in November or December. Step 3: Scientific literature searches o Mimics year 1 process Step 4: Interviews/surveys o Mimics year 1 process Step 5: Selected demonstrations and field tours o Mimics year 1 process Step 6: Development of practice definitions and efficiencies o Mimics year 1 process Step 7: Small group meetings/review ------- o One criticism from year 1 was that there was only one developer and one reviewer for each practice. In order to improve the review process in phase 2, a small review group will be used rather than just one reviewer, o Members of MAWP will be asked to facilitate and lead these review group meetings. • The draft definitions and efficiencies will be submitted to the subcommittee and workgroups on May 1, 2008. These groups will have until September 1st for review. At that time, the final draft definitions and efficiencies will be sent to the Water Quality Steering Committee. The WQSC will then approve or reject the efficiencies by November 1st. • Let Sarah know if you have any suggestions on ways to improve this process. • The report from year 1 will be finished in late November. At that time, it will be sent out to workgroup members electronically. • In December 2008, a one-day forum will be held to present the final definitions and efficiencies and to discuss future directions and needs. • Sarah requested that workgroup members review the handout entitled "Overview of Tributary Strategies" and see if there is anything that she left out. This handout lists the BMPs that are found in the various Tributary Strategies. The BMPs that are listed are only those that relate to Phase 2 of this project. A list of practices that are being implemented but that are not included in the Tributary Strategies is also being compiled. • Sarah also needs the workgroup to decide on a list of BMP subcategories or subcomponents that should be analyzed in phase 2. Due to time constraints, UMD/MAWP requests that only 3-4 subcategories be submitted for each BMP. Once Sarah compiles the answers from the six above questions, she will distribute these answers to the workgroup. The workgroup can then use these answers to help them come up with the subcategories. • Q: Will the 3-4 subcategories be practices that are common across the Bay states? o A: Ideally, however, we'll have to see what the answers from those six questions show us and then figure out the subcategories from there. UMD/MAWP would prefer that the workgroup comes up with the subcategories. This issue will be discussed at the workgroup's next meeting or conference call. • The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 am. Participants Sally Bradley Norm Goulet Lee Hill Tim Karikari Reggie Parrish Karuna Pujara Steve Stewart Jeff Sweeney Sarah Weammert CRC NVRC VADCR DC Gov. EPA CBPO MD SHA Baltimore County UMD UMD sbradlev@chesapeakebav.net ngoul et@novaregi on. org lee.hill@scr.virginia.gov timothy.karikari@dc.gov parrish.reginald@epa.gov kpui ara@ sha. state. md. us sstewart@baltimorecountvmd. gov i sweenev@chesapeakebav.net sweammer@umd. edu 3 ------- |