Minutes: Tributary Strategy Workgroup Meeting April 7, 2008 Highlights and Action Items ¦ ACTION: The next TSWG meeting is scheduled for June 2nd. This meeting will be focused on technical reviews, including a COAST update. ¦ DECISION: The Tributary Strategy Workgroup members agreed that they should serve as the bridge between technical model reviews and local implementation. ¦ DECISION: The Tributary Strategy Workgroup members agreed to meet as needed. The Workgroup will likely need to meet frequently in the near future but may be able to move to quarterly meetings later. ¦ DECISION: The Tributary Strategy Workgroup agreed to change its name to the Watershed Technical Workgroup to better reflect its focus. Handouts and Presentations ¦ Agenda ¦ Codorus Watershed Project - Presentation by Jake Romig, Ecostruction ¦ City of Seaford. DE - Presentation by Dolores Slatcher, City of Seaford Manager ¦ The Future of the Tributary Strategy Workgroup - Presentation by Jeff Sweeney ¦ Tools. Achievements, and Connections: A View of Tributary Strategies from One Virginia Local Government's Perspective - Presentation by Sally Thomas, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Tamara Ambler, Natural Resources Manager ¦ Challenges of Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin - Presentation by Carol Sweeney, Town of Owego, NY Supervisor ¦ The Future of the Tributary Strategy Workgroup Briefing Paper ¦ Virginia Memo on Scope and Purpose of TSWG ¦ COAST Fact Sheet I. Welcome and Introductions ¦ Jeff Sweeney, Tributary Strategy Workgroup Coordinator, welcomed everyone to the meeting and initiated introductions. II. Perspectives from Local Governments on Tributary Strategy Implementation ¦ The purpose of the meeting is to hear the perspectives of local government representatives on the implementation of nutrient and sediment reduction practices in order to better engage and collaborate with localities in Tributary Strategy implementation. A. Town of Owego, NY Carol Sweeney, elected Town of Owego Supervisor, presented "Challenges of Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin. Carol is an elected official on the same order of the mayor of a village or city. Her presentation is available 1 ------- at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 04-07- 08 Presentation 1 9154.pdf. ¦ The Town of Owego has a population of 20,365 and is declining. It is a mix of villages, subdivisions, and rural areas. ¦ Owego has two sewage treatment plants at a combined flow of 2.85 million gallons per day. ¦ Flooding is a major problem for Owego. o Properties along the river do not have extra value, o There have been four flood events within 26 months requiring FEMA assistance. ¦ Owego encounters a variety of challenges in the way of sediment removal: o The topography is very steep o The town is 70% forested and actively logged o Flooding causes additional sedimentation ¦ Challenges of nutrient removal include: o No state or federal money or subsidized interest currently available for Sewer Capital Projects o High property taxes leave residents unable to afford increased fees or rates o Higher sewer rates could drive out industries which employ many town residents o Infrastructure is aging; it is estimated to cost about $10 million to upgrade one of the plants. The budget for the town's treatment plants is only $1.5 million. Sewer rates would have to be raised 50% for operation and maintenance costs alone. ¦ Challenges for 2008 include: o Evaluating the cost effective operational improvements to reach effluent goals of total nitrogen concentration of 12 mg/L and total phosphorus of 2 mg/L at the two plants. o Gaining support from the state to extend the phosphorus ban on household cleaning products to include automatic dishwashing detergent o Asking for federal funds for any major capital upgrades that are required for reaching these goals and also for additional operation and maintenance costs. Discussion ¦ Drinking water all comes from community wells. Two of the wells were underwater during the flood events. Repairs on the wells will hopefully be covered by insurance or FEMA money. ¦ The town is disconnected to the Chesapeake Bay and other downstream problems. ¦ The New York Department of Environmental Control is working on a Tributary Strategy for the town, which came up with the sewage treatment plant loading goals. ¦ The state agency is not actively engaged in achieving nonpoint source reductions. Soil and water conservation districts tend to fill that role by working with farmers. ¦ Costs are prohibitive in implementing Tributary Strategies. If new regulations are going to be imposed, the town needs money to implement them. ¦ Most of the towns in the area along the upper Susquehanna River also experience significant flooding. 2 ------- ¦ Streams and tributaries are relatively clean; there are currently no TMDLs being written for any stream segments. B. Albemarle County, VA Sally Thomas, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors elected official, presented "Tools, Achievements, and Connections: A View of Tributary Strategies from One Virginia Local Government's Perspective." Her presentation is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 04-07- 08 Presentation 2 9154.pdf. ¦ Sally Thomas pointed out that the presentations this morning may not focus on what we all would like them to discuss, but they represent the realities of local governments. ¦ Albemarle County, Virginia surrounds the separate city of Charlottesville. The population is about 90,000. ¦ The county receives its public water from surface water reservoirs and a river intake, with the exception of rural areas which are on septic systems and wells. o County residents tend to care more about water quality because they drink their own water, not necessarily because of the health of the Chesapeake Bay. ¦ The county has a land use policy that recognizes the link between land use and water quality, such as smart growth practices that attract growth into Designated Development Areas and discourage development in rural areas. o In 2005, 53% of the population was living in the Designated Development Areas. Tamara Ambler, Albemarle County's Natural Resources Manager, talked about all of the tools that the county uses to address the nutrient and sediment reduction goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program. ¦ Albemarle County's local erosion and sediment control program is used as a tool to address sediment issues on non-agricultural areas greater than 10,000 square feet. o The amount of sediment is not quantified, however, for determining how much needs to be captured. Best management practices on site are assumed to address sedimentation issues. ¦ The county's local stormwater management program applies to all non-agricultural land disturbances. It is required by the county and by small MS4 permits. The program quantifies the percentage of phosphorus removed from new development compared to existing watershed conditions. ¦ Albemarle County has been putting together some water protection demonstration projects at their office building aimed at staff and the public. Projects include a greenroof, rain barrel, rain garden, and pervious pavers. ¦ The county voluntarily implements Chesapeake Bay Act guidelines. For example, the county implemented a stream buffer requirement of 200 feet on water supply reservoirs and a 100 feet buffer on all streams in the majority of the county. ¦ Total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies have been completed and others are underway but there are no implementation plans in progress yet. ¦ Albemarle County has been taking advantage of grant opportunities. DCR gave the County a grant to do cost-share buffer planting on non-agricultural lands in impaired 3 ------- watersheds. The county's GIS department identified parcels to target and mailed out 4,000 letters advertising the cost-share program. ¦ The Conservation Easement program is being used to protect land although it is not directly connected to water protection. 12.8% of the County land is under a permanent conservation easement. ¦ Soil and water conservation districts are actively involved on agricultural lands and provide riparian easements for stormwater management. They require the landowner to give them the riparian land in an easement and money to monitor the buffers. ¦ The Rivanna River Basin Commission was formed to protect the Rivanna River and is composed of elected officials. ¦ Federal agencies are not providing money for wastewater treatment plant upgrades like they used to, so local governments are facing "sticker shock" in the face of needed costly upgrades. ¦ Challenges in implementing these great tools and programs include: o Local programs are disconnected, even though the same best management practices are being used, o BMP effectiveness is not available to demonstrate how much they will improve water quality and function under development, o Local government programs are not connected to the Chesapeake Bay nomenclature of nutrient and sediment loads. Further, localities cannot track actions that can be used by the Bay Program, o Tributary Strategy BMPs and practices under TMDLs cannot be mandated by the locality, such as pet waste management, lawn fertilization, repair of stream channel erosion, and urban nutrient management. Discussion ¦ The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program provides more money to people than a transferable development rights program. ¦ If landowners are doing agriculture, the County can do almost nothing to restrict development. o Zoning in rural areas is limited to 21 acre lot minimums. o If the area is an erosion impact area, the County can enforce management practices similar to what would be imposed on development. ¦ The Rivanna Reservoir's primary issue is sedimentation. There is not a lot of agriculture in the area, but there are a lot of horse pastures that may be overpopulated with horses. MS4s have recently been identified (urban runoff, pet waste, wildlife, etc.) as a main contributor to water quality impairments. ¦ The County's drinking water watersheds lie entirely within the County. ¦ Aside from needing money, the County is also in need of ambient water quality data and data on what has already been done. Credible data would help to enforce programs and tell how well things have been working. Further, on-the-ground data would allow the County to connect their local programs and practices to Chesapeake Bay improvements. C. York Township, PA 4 ------- Jake Romig, President of Ecostruction, LLC, presented his work as a contractor for York Township. Jake Romig is representing Local Government Advisory Committee member, Phil Briddell who is the Commissioner of York Township, PA. His presentation is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 04-07- 08 Presentation 3 9154.pdf. ¦ Ecostruction focuses on protecting waterways in York and creates watershed management plans. ¦ The Codorus Watershed takes up about half of York County in South Central Pennsylvania. It is primarily rural and agriculture. ¦ The biggest concerns in the Codorus Watershed are stream degradation and water quality. Many of the streams are high priority. ¦ The Codorus Watershed Project was set up after the Glatfelter Paper Company gave a $2 million Codorus Watershed Endowment. ¦ The Codorus Watershed Project has been doing a lot of studies and will now be focusing more on implementation. o The Codorus Creek Rivers Conservation Plan is being developed. It is a long- term comprehensive management strategy that will include prioritized recommendations that municipalities must adopt. Funding is needed to implement the projects. Plans are not being utilized as intended. ¦ A Watershed Wizard program for analyzing watersheds to create a management plan was developed for use by non-GIS users. The Watershed Wizard allows people access to RCP information through surfing the watershed. It will work well for municipalities. ¦ Jake's involvement in implementation includes providing support to municipalities such as technical assistance, grant writing and administration, local priority setting, and ordinance creation and review. He is actively engaging localities to take advantage of these services free of charge. o Jake is working on a Critical Environmental Area Ordinance for York Township, to create a 100 foot buffer on most streams and a 150 foot buffer on headwater streams and protect forests and wetlands. o Jake is offering technical assistance to Penn State York which is trying to quantify the efficacy of their restoration projects on water quality. Matt Hoch is the lead on this effort. A progress report to DEP is being written to show that the stream miles of restoration are working. Discussion ¦ Jake tells municipalities the benefits of adopting the plans he is offering free of charge. Many municipalities are in agricultural areas, so he makes the connection between farms and the Chesapeake Bay. o Some farmers are very progressive, and some believe they are doing the right thing. Many are even talking about nutrient trading and generating credits. D. City of Seaford, DE Dolores Slatcher, City Manager of the City of Seaford, presented "City of Seaford, DE Wastewater Treatment Discharge: Nanticoke River." Her presentation is available at 5 ------- http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 04-07- 08 Presentation 4 9154.pdf. ¦ The population of Seaford is about 6900 people. ¦ Seaford's municipal tributary concerns are to be a good neighbor, to sustain natural habitat, to sustain recreational opportunities, to provide a cleaner environment, and to treat wastewater to eliminate pollution. ¦ Primary treatment was constructed in the 1960s, and secondary treatment was added in the 1980s. A compost site was constructed to provide a reuse of the treated product which is sold for application on lawns, golf courses, etc. ¦ Seaford is encouraging strengthening monitoring on runoff and septic loads that impact water quality. The city would also like more public education programs so that people know the harm they actually cause. ¦ Seaford needs additional funding for municipals to increase the level of treatment that assists those residents outside the municipal limits in meeting the new water quality regulations. If people don't have the money, they push back. ¦ Seaford would like permission from the state or federal government to discharge wastewater on forestlands in lieu of just to the river. Discussion ¦ Delaware's septic system laws are changing. Every three years septic systems have to be inspected, pumped out, and cleaned. These existing regulations are starting to be more enforced. ¦ Sally Thomas mentioned that communities are having problems with the smell of sewage. ¦ Seaford's environmental improvement actions are driven by the use of the Nanticoke River. III. Discussion on Engaging and Collaborating with Local Governments ¦ Jeff Sweeney opened up the discussion on how to better engage and collaborate with local governments on Tributary Strategy implementation. Tributary Strategies are working at a very large scale, however implementation needs to be greatly accelerated. One mechanism to do this is work at a more local scale. In the future in the face of TMDLs, some jurisdictions, VA in particular, may want to take strategies down to the county level. The county will then plan for point and nonpoint source reductions. ¦ What can the Bay Program partnership do to help local governments? Will plans to allocate to the county level help or hurt? o Carol Sweeney said that for New York, they need to work within a large area to ensure flexibility. It would be useful to have a better explanation of how what happens in New York affects the Chesapeake Bay, including water quality in waters as they leave New York. Carol was extremely concerned about having unfunded mandates imposed on Owego, a small town with clean waters as they leave the town, o Dolores Slatcher wants to also know what impact the money that has been spent has had on the cleanup effort. 6 ------- o Tamara Ambler restated Albemarle County's need for water quality data to demonstrate improvements, o Sally Thomas added that their funding has been increasingly cut, making it more difficult to get things done, o Jeff Sweeney mentioned that TMDL use attainability analyses provide measures of how much TMDL implementation will cost. It would be beneficial to involve local governments in this exercise. ¦ Rich Batiuk asked the local government representatives what we should be aware of as we develop the Bay TMDLs. What would position you better to talk to the public to get things done? o Sally Thomas said that local governments need the information to show the public, developers, etc. why they have to do what is asked of them. The data is needed to back up their work but money is also needed to implement. ¦ Jennifer Volk, DE DNREC, informed Sally and others about DE's Nutrient Budget Protocol tool that can measure and track nutrient changes according to planned develop. This tool and others were discussed at the Tributary Strategy Workgroup's December 18th meeting. ¦ Kevin Sellner, CRC, said that there are BMP efficiencies available on the Chesapeake Bay Program website at http://www.chesapeakebav.net/tributarvstrategy tools.aspx?menuitern =20839. ¦ Mike Fritz, EPA, asked if we impose a no net decrease in the immediate waterbody standard, would the developer be willing to do pre- and post-development monitoring? o Ted Graham, COG, added that most of our conversations are about new development but we must also focus on infill and currently developed areas, o Carol Sweeney pointed out that one of the major challenges in Tributary Strategy implementation is that there is no political reason to address these issues because it will not get elected officials reelected. ¦ It is not a good enough reason to say New York will get more tourism, no fishing, etc. IV. The Future of the Tributary Strategy Workgroup Jeff Sweeney opened up the discussion by presenting, "The Future of the Tributary Strategy Workgroup." His presentation is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 04-07- 08 Presentation 5 9154.pdf. Background information and questions for discussion are available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 04-07- 08 Handout 1 9154.pdf. ¦ Jeff Sweeney asked the group if they believed their Reevaluation Technical Workgroup representatives would be capable of handling the technical components and technical support of the TMDL allocations. o Kenn Pattison, PA DEP, said that this technical workgroup is actually focusing on policy. 7 ------- o The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup will likely be taking over a lot of the responsibilities that the Tributary Strategy Workgroup has previously addressed. ¦ Alana Hartman, WV DEP, added that her job has shifted more toward implementation over the past couple of years and personally doesn't want the group to change back to a technical focus. ¦ Bill Keeling, VA DCR, said that there is a dire need for a group to do technical reviews on the model and inputs. o Jeff Sweeney added that this group should keep its technical focus because it has the expertise on the inputs. ¦ Where should the discussions of local implementation be? o Jennifer Volk, DE DNREC, said that the local implementation theme is very important, so either the Nutrient Subcommittee or TSWG should address it. o VA DCR thinks the local implementation theme would be better suited at the Local Government Advisory Committee or the Land, Growth, and Stewardship Subcommittee, o Norm Goulet, NVRC, thinks it's a good idea to have the local government perspective at times because it really helps the TSWG. It would be useful to alternate between the model reviews and the local implementation theme and have the TSWG serve as the group that knows what is going on on-the- ground. o Kenn Pattison agreed that the local theme should remain at the TSWG because the members know the reality of what is happening on-the-ground. o Bill Keeling, VA DCR, said that there are many technical aspects of the model that need to be reviewed. Virginia is in favor of keeping the TSWG a technical advisory group, as laid out in an attached handout at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 04-07- 08 Handout 2 9154.pdf. o Jeff Sweeney agrees that a lot will be on the TSWG's plate for review to get Phase 5.0 up and running, things that the Reevaluation Technical Workgroup will not be addressing. For example, the Reevaluation Technical Workgroup will give the TSWG rules for doing equitable allocations but the TSWG will have to come up with a scheme for doing the equitable allocation. Next Steps ¦ The TSWG members would like to continue in the development and support of tools for implementation, particularly COAST. A COAST fact sheet is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 04-07- 08 Handout 3 9154.pdf. ¦ Jeff Sweeney, Olivia Devereux, and Scott Phillips will have a lot of work to run by the TSWG in the near future. ¦ Helen Stewart, MD DNR, is currently stepping down as chair, so the Workgroup will be looking for a new chair. ACTION: The next TSWG meeting is scheduled for June 2nd. This meeting will be focused on technical reviews, including a COAST update. 8 ------- DECISION: The Tributary Strategy Workgroup members agreed that they should serve as the bridge between technical model reviews and local implementation. DECISION: The Tributary Strategy Workgroup members agreed to meet as needed. The Workgroup will likely need to meet frequently in the near future but may be able to move to quarterly meetings later. DECISION: The Tributary Strategy Workgroup agreed to change its name to the Watershed Technical Workgroup to better reflect its focus. V. Meeting Adjourned ¦ The meeting was adj ourned at 3:15 PM. Participants Jeff Sweeney UMD/CBPO i sweenevfS),chesapeakebav.net Sara Parr CRC/CBPO soarr (a), chesaoeakebav.net Jennifer Volk DEDNREC Jennifer.volkfS),state.de.us Robin Pellicano MDE rDellicano(a),mde. state.md.us Diana Davis DC Dept of Env diane.davis2(a>,dc.gov Jake Romig York Twp/Ecostruction iakeromigfa),ecostructionllc.net Cassandra Ladino USGS/CBPO ccladino(3),usgs. gov Rick Keister LGAC rkeisterfo),acb-online.org Scott Hymes MDDNR shvmes(3),dnr. state, md.us Mike Fritz EPA/CBPO fritz. mike(a),eDa. gov Amy Handen NEMP/CBPO ahandenfo),chesapeakebav.net Olivia Devereux UMD/CBPO devereux(a),umd. edu Diana Reynolds MDDNR drevnolds(a),dnr. state.md.us Sally Thomas Albemarle Co., VA sthomasfo),albemarle.org Tamara Ambler Albemarle Co., VA tamblerfo),albemarle.org Ted Graham WashCOG tgraham(3),mwcog. org Dolores Slatcher City of Seaford dslatcherfo),seafordde.com Charles Anderson City of Seaford candersonfo),seafordde.com Carol Sweeney Town of Owego csweenevfS),townofowego.com Bill Keeling VADCR William, keeling®, dcr.virginia.gov Keely Clifford EPA/CBPO Clifford.keelvfS),epa.gov Normand Goulet NVRC ngoul et(a),novaregi on. org Kenn Pattison PA DEP kpattisonfo),state.pa.us Mark Symborski M-NCPPC/MC mark, svmborski (a),mncDDC-mc.org Kevin Sellner CRC/STAC sellnerkfo), si.edu Rich Batiuk EPA/CBPO batiuk.richardfo), epa.gov Peter Claggett USGS/CBPO pclaggetfo),chesapeakebav.net On the phone: Peter Freehafer NY DEC Dbfreeha(a>,gw.dec. state, nv.us 9 ------- Chip Rice VA DCR Alan Brockenbrough VA DEQ Alana Hartman WV DEP chip.rice@dcr.virginia.gov abrockenbrough@deq .Virginia, gov ahartman@wvdep.org 10 ------- |