reducing nutrients on private property review...report no. pep‐12‐05 ... environment, wetlands...
Post on 01-Jan-2021
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Reducing Nutrients onPrivate Property:
Evaluation of Programs, Practices,and Incentives
Reducing Nutrients onPrivate Property:
Evaluation of Programs, Practices,and Incentives
PEP 12-05
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO HRPDC APPROVAL
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
DWIGHT L. FARMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY
CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON AMAR DWARKANATH W. EUGENE HUNT, JR. ERIC J. MARTIN * J. RANDALL WHEELER CLIFTON E. HAYES, JR * ALAN P. KRASNOFF PORTSMOUTH ELLA P. WARD KENNETH L. CHANDLER * KENNETH I. WRIGHT FRANKLIN * R. RANDY MARTIN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BARRY CHEATHAM RONALD M. WEST * MICHAEL W. JOHNSON GLOUCESTER COUNTY * BRENDA G. GARTON SUFFOLK ASHLEY C. CHRISCOE * SELENA CUFFEE-GLENN LINDA T. JOHNSON HAMPTON MARY BUNTING SURRY COUNTY ROSS A. KEARNEY * TYRONE W. FRANKLIN * MOLLY JOSEPH WARD JOHN M. SEWARD
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY VIRGINIA BEACH W. DOUGLAS CASKEY HARRY E. DIEZEL * DELORES DARDEN ROBERT M. DYER
BARBARA M. HENLEY JAMES CITY COUNTY * LOUIS R. JONES * MARY K. JONES JOHN MOSS ROBERT C. MIDDAUGH JAMES K. SPORE JOHN E. UHRIN NEWPORT NEWS NEIL A. MORGAN WILLIAMSBURG * MCKINLEY L. PRICE * CLYDE A. HAULMAN
SHARON P. SCOTT JACKSON C. TUTTLE
NORFOLK YORK COUNTY ANTHONY L. BURFOOT * JAMES O. McREYNOLDS * PAUL D. FRAIM THOMAS G. SHEPPERD, JR. THOMAS R. SMIGIEL MARCUS JONES ANGELIA WILLIAMS *EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
PROJECT STAFF
JOHN M. CARLOCK, AICP HRPDC DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHITNEY S. KATCHMARK PRINCIPAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNER JENNIFER L. TRIBO SENIOR WATER RESOURCES PLANNER TIFFANY M. SMITH WTER RESOURCES PLANNER FRANCES HUGHEY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT MICHAEL LONG GENERAL SERVICES MANAGER CHRISTOPHER W. VAIGNEUR REPROGRAPHIC COORDINATOR RICHARD CASE FACILITIES SUPERINTENDENT
HAMPTON ROADS REGION
REDUCING NUTRIENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS,
PRACTICES, AND INCENTIVES
Preparedforthe
HAMPTONROADSPLANNINGDISTRICTCOMMISSION
ReportNo.PEP‐12‐05
Preparedby
WETLANDSWATCH,INC.
JUNE 2012
R E PO R T DO CUMEN T A T I O N
TITLE:
HamptonRoadsRegion,ReducingNutrientsonPrivateProperty:EvaluationofPrograms,PracticesandIncentives
REPORTDATE:
June2012
AUTHORS:ShereenHughes,AssistantDirectorSkipStiles,DirectorWetlandsWatch,Inc.P.O.Box9335Norfolk,Virginia23505(757)623‐4835www.wetlandswatch.org
ORGANIZATIONNAMEANDCONTACTINFORMATION:
HamptonRoadsPlanningDistrictCommission723WoodlakeDriveChesapeake,Virginia23320(757)420‐8300www.hrpdcva.gov
ABSTRACT:
Non‐governmental organizations (NGO) are engaged in efforts to change private landownerbehaviorusingpracticesthatcouldbecreditedtowardalocalgovernment’sprogressinachievingtheir Chesapeake Bay TotalMaximumDaily Load (TMDL), Phase IIWatershed ImplementationPlan(WIP)strategies.ExamplesoflocalgovernmentandNGOcollaborationsareexaminedinthisreport,andrecommendationsarepresentedtoexpandtheseeffortsintheHamptonRoadsregion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Thisprojectwasfunded,inpart,bytheVirginiaCoastalZoneManagement(CZM)ProgramattheDepartment of Environmental Quality through Grant FY2011 #NA11NOS4190122 of the U.S.Department of Commerce, National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under theCoastalZoneManagementActof1972,asamended.Theviewsexpressedhereinarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflect theviewsof theU.S.DepartmentofCommerce,NOAA,oranyofitssubagencies.
Work to support thedevelopmentofVirginia’s Phase IIWIP is included in theHamptonRoadsPlanningDistrictCommissionUnifiedPlanningWorkProgramforFiscalYear2012,approvedbytheHRPDCatitsExecutiveCommitteemeetingofJune16,2011.ThisspecificprojectisincludedintheHRPDC2011CZMcompetitivegrantproposalpackage.HRPDCauthorizedthesubmittalofthegrantproposalandsubsequentacceptanceofgrantofferatitsExecutiveCommitteemeetingofSeptember 15, 2011. This report was prepared for the Hampton Roads Planning DistrictCommission byWetlandsWatch, Inc. and leveraged ongoing efforts byWetlandsWatch, usingfundingfromTheCampbellFoundationfortheEnvironment.
Preface
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | i
P R E F A C E ThisreportwasfortheHamptonRoadsPlanningDistrictCommission(HRPDC)asasubcontractortoCH2MHillandfundedthroughagranttotheHRPDCfromtheVirginiaCoastalZoneManagementProgram.
ThegoalofthisprojectistosupportlocalHamptonRoadsgovernmenteffortstodevelopPhaseIIWatershedImplementationPlan(WIP)strategieswithapreliminaryinvestigationintothefeasibility,opportunities,andconstraintsofutilizingbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)fornutrientreductiononexistingurban/suburbanresidentialandlightcommercialprivateproperty.Thepurposeofthisreportistosummarizethefindingsofthisthree‐monthpreliminaryinvestigationof:
ModelProgramsofsuccessfulvoluntaryandmandatedprivatepropertystormwatermanagementprogramsandpractices,includingfinancialincentiveprogramsandutilitycreditsthatHamptonRoadslocalitiescanuseintheireffortstocomplywiththeVirginiaWIPstrategies.
Effortsofnon‐profitorganizations,citizensgroups,andtrainedstewardshipprograms(non‐governmentalorganizations“NGO”)toincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandinstallBMPsintheHamptonRoadsRegion.
Appropriatebestmanagementpractices(BMPs)suitableforexistingprivateurbanandsuburbanresidentialandsmallcommercialpropertiesandfactorsthatimpactthefeasibilityandeffectivenessoftheseretrofit‐typeBMPstoachievenutrientand/orsedimentreductionsonprivateproperty.
Advantages, disadvantages, obstacles, and unresolved issues that impact thefeasibilityofachievingnutrientreductionsonprivateproperty.
Availability,quality,andusefulnessofexistingbmpdataassociatedwiththeseNGOprograms and projects in order to determine if the existing BMP data can be used bylocalitiestoestimatenutrientandsedimentloadreductionsonprivateproperty.
TheinvestigationwasdesignedtoexpandonworkoriginallyinitiatedbyWetlandsWatchinLateSpring2011:1)toidentifyexistingwatershedstewardactivitiesandprogramsinHamptonRoadsandChesapeakeBayRegion;2)toselectamodelprogramtoemulatethatwouldincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipactionsincludingBMPsandhabitatprotection/restorationinHamptonRoads,3)identifyprogrammaticchangesandresourcesneededtodevelopneworrefineexistingenvironmentalstewardprograms,and4)conductaStrategicSummittobringinterestedstakeholderstogetherinacollaborativeefforttodevelopaWatershedStewardsAcademy(WSA)orrefineexistingenvironmentalstewardprogramsinHamptonRoads.
Preface
ii | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Executive Summary
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | iii
E X E C U T I V E S UMMAR Y
In2010,theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)establishedtheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)fornitrogen,phosphorous,andsediment.TheTMDLpollutionreductionallocationwassubdividedbystatejurisdictionandwatershedbasin.Virginiafurthersubdividedthestateallocationtothelocal‐governmentlevel.EachstatedevelopedWatershedImplementationPlans(WIPs)thatexplainedhowandwhenstateswouldmeetpollutionreductionallocations.
InthePhaseIandIIWIPs,VirginiaidentifiedanumberofstrategiestomeettheChesapeakeBayTMDL(BayTMDL).Ultimately,thesestatestrategieswillrequirelocalitiestodevelop,implementandmaintainregulatoryand/orvoluntaryprogramstoachievetheBayTMDLandcomplywithMunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystem(MS4)permitsaswellasotherstateandfederalregulatoryprograms.Inlargelyurbanandsuburbanlocalities,likemostinHamptonRoads,theVirginiaWIPstrategiesfortheurbansectorposeasignificantchallenge.Populationdensities,older/pre‐CleanWaterActdevelopments,prevalenceofimpervioussurfaces,lackofavailablelandforlarge‐scalebestmanagementpractices(BMPs),andmanyotherfactorsincreasethedifficultyofachievingnutrientandsedimentreductionsinstormwaterrunoffinHamptonRoads.
OnestrategytomeettheTMDLreductiongoalsistoencouragehomeownersandbusinessestovoluntarilyinstallBMPsontheirproperty.Localgovernmentsareconcernedabouttheincreasedstaffandfundingneededtomotivateprivatepropertyownerstoinstallandmaintainthesepractices,andtoinspect,monitorandreportnutrientandsedimentreductionsfromtheseretrofitBMPsfortheChesapeakeBayTMDL.
Inthespringof2011,usingunrestrictedfundingfromTheCampbellFoundationfortheEnvironment,WetlandsWatchbeganareviewofeffortsbynonprofitwatershedgroups,environmentalstewardgroups,local,state,andfederalgovernment,andtheprivatesectortoincreasetheuseofconservationlandscapingpracticesasBMPsonprivateproperty.ThisworkevolvedintoapartnershipwiththeHamptonRoadsPlanningDistrictCommission(HRPDC),throughasubcontractwithCH2MHillandfundedthroughagrantfromtheVirginiaCoastalZoneManagementProgram.InsupportofHamptonRoadslocalgovernmenteffortstodevelopPhaseIIWIPstrategies,WetlandsWatch,Inc.,conductedaninvestigationintothefeasibility,opportunities,andconstraintsofutilizingBMPsfornutrientandsedimentreductiononexistingurban/suburbanresidentialandlightcommercialprivateproperty.
Thisinvestigationreliedonanon‐lineliteratureandrecordssearch,asurveyofprivatepropertyownersandtrainedenvironmentalstewards,andextensivestakeholderinterviewsandcommunicationswithnon‐governmentalorganizations(NGOs),foundations,localandstategovernmentstaff,VirginiaSoilandWaterConservationDistrict(SWCD)personnel,VirginiaCooperativeExtensionagents,andUSEPAandChesapeakeBayProgramstafftoexamine:
ModelProgramsofsuccessfulvoluntaryandmandatedprivatepropertystormwatermanagementprogramsandpractices,includingfinancialincentiveprogramsandutilitycreditsthatHamptonRoadslocalitiescoulduseintheireffortstocomplywiththeVirginiaWIPstrategies.
Executive Summary
iv | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Effortsofnon‐profitorganizations,citizensgroups,andtrainedstewardshipprograms(NGOs)toincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandinstallBMPsintheHamptonRoadsRegion.
Bestmanagementpractices(BMPs)suitableforurbanandsuburbanresidentialandsmallcommercialpropertiesinHamptonRoadsandfactorsthatimpactthefeasibilityandeffectivenessoftheseretrofit‐typeBMPstoachievenutrientand/orsedimentreductionsonprivateproperty.
Advantages,disadvantages,obstacles,andunresolvedissuesthatimpactthefeasibilityofachievingnutrientreductionsonprivateproperty.
Availability,quality,andusefulnessofexistingBMPdataassociatedwithNGOprogramsandprojectsinordertodetermineiftheexistingBMPdatacanbeusedbylocalitiestoestimatenutrientandsedimentloadreductionsonprivateproperty.
ThisreporthighlightsanumberofmodelprogramsthatlocalitiescanemulateormodifybasedontheirownneedsinordertoincreasethenumberofBMPsonresidential,smallcommercialorsmallinstitutionalproperties.Mostoftheprogramswereoriginallydesignedtocomplywithstakeholderoutreach,education,andengagementassociatedwithMS4permitsorlocalTMDLs;however,ifproperlyplanned,implemented,tracked,andsubsequentlymonitored,BMPsinstalledthroughtheseprogramscanbeusedtoachievesedimentandnutrientreductiontomeettheChesapeakeBayTMDL.SevenoftheprogramshighlightedarelocatedinVirginia,withthreeoftheprogramsinHamptonRoads.Mostoftheprogramshighlighted,whetherinitiatedbylocalgovernment,nonprofitwatershedgroups,orSoilandWaterConservationDistricts(SWCDs)includeseveralkeycharacteristicsthatlocalitiesinHamptonRoadsshouldconsiderwhendesigningtheirownprogram.
Thisinvestigationidentifiedsignificant,oftenuntappedandunrecognizedorganizational,marketing,andfinancialresourcesinVirginia’sChesapeakeBaywatershedsthatcouldbeutilizedtoachievenutrientandsedimentpollutionreductiongoals.Nonprofitwatershedgroups,SWCDs,environmentalstewardgroupsliketheMasterNaturalistsandAdvancedMasterGardeners,andprivatesectorentitiesactingaloneandinpartnershipwithlocalgovernmentshavebeenworkingwithprivatepropertyowners(residential,commercial,institutional,andindustrial)tochangetheirbehaviorandadoptwatershedconservationandrestorationpractices.Atthesametime,somelocalgovernmentshavebegunreachingouttotheNGOsforassistanceinmeetingenvironmentalgoalsforMS4programsorbroadersustainabilitybenefits.
Fromaresidentialandsmallcommercialpropertyperspective,thepracticespromotedaredescribedasbayscaping,rainscaping,sustainablelandscaping,water‐friendlyactions,orconservationlandscaping.Muchoftheexistingoutreach,education,andengagementeffortshavebeenfundedbynon‐governmentalsources,primarilyfoundations,whichleveragesignificantin‐kindvolunteeranddonatedservices.Often,NGOswillpartnerwiththeprivatesector(stormwaterconsultants,wetlandsspecialists,landscapearchitects/designers),researchinstitutions,orlocal/state/federalgovernmenttoprovidetechnicalexpertise.NGOsworkwithlocalcitizenvolunteers,trainedenvironmentalstewards,andlandscapecontractorstoinstallandmaintaindemonstrationprojects.SomeNGOsandgovernmentprogramshaveworkedwiththeprivatesectortomarketandincreasetheavailabilityofgoodsandservicesfortheseconservationlandscapingBMPs.PollutionreductionsfromconservationlandscapingBMPscouldmakeasignificantcontributiontowardmeetinglocalityWIPgoalsinurbanandsuburbanVirginialocalitiesifpracticeswereexpanded,standardizedfordifferentapplications,
Executive Summary
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | v
consistentlyimplemented,andappropriatelydocumentedandmaintainedtosupportnutrientremovalefficiencies.
BasedondataprovidedbytheNationalFishandWildlifeFoundation(NFWF),WetlandsWatch,Inc.estimatesthatNFWFalonehasprovidedapproximately$2.5millionwithintheHamptonRoadsarea,toNGOs,SWCDs,andlocalitiestoconductoutreach,education,anddeliverincentive‐basedprogramsthatincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandinstallationofBMPsonexistingprivateproperty.WithmatchingfundsfromprivatesourcesandothergrantprogramsliketheVirginiaDCRWaterQualityImplementationFunds(WQIF),thetotaleconomicvalueassociatedwiththeNFWFfundedgrantprojectsisatleast$5million.WetlandsWatch,Inc.hasestimatedthatNFWFprovidedalmost$20millioninfundingforacombinationofSmallandTargetedWatershedGrantsinVirginiafrom2006topresent.OthersourcesoffundingforlocalitiesincludeUSEPAgrants,NOAAgrants,eitherdirectlyorthroughtheVirginiaCoastalZoneManagementProgram,VirginiaWQIF,ChesapeakeBayTrustgrants,generalfunds,bonds,stormwaterutilityfees,andstormwatermitigationfunds.
ThisreportalsoattemptstoidentifyBMPssuitableforuseintheCoastalPlainthatmeetexistingEPAandVirginiastandards.ThereportdefinestheseBMPsanddiscusseshowtheyarecreditedinChesapeakeBayModelsandtheVirginiaStormwaterRegulations.
Inconclusion,WetlandsWatchfound:
ManyBMPretrofitshavebeenimplementedonprivatepropertyinHamptonRoadsthatcouldcounttowardsWIPandMS4requiredgoals.However,additionalworkisneededtolocate,trackandstandardizedatadocumentingtheseactivities.
Thereisnotacurrentprocesstoensureconsistency,reliability,ongoingmaintenance,andadequatereportingofexistingandfutureBMPsonprivatepropertytoenablelocalitiestocounttheseBMPstowardscompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDLandMS4permits.
Stewardshiporprivatepropertyretrofitprogramsneedtohavestrategiesbasedonawell‐defined,unifying,andpublicly‐availableplanthatacknowledgesandrespondstolocalissues,transitiontolong‐termeffortswithreliablefundingsources,andinvolvepartnershipsbetweenlocalgovernments,localNGOs(includingtrainedenvironmentalstewards),andprivatesectorinterests(landscapingandnurserybusinesses).
Therearemodelprograms,inadjacentstatesandwithinVirginiathatcouldbeusedtolayout“bestpractices”toexpandBMPinstallationonurban/suburbanresidentialandlightcommercialprivateproperty–includingwaystoprovideincentivesandremovebarrierstoadoptionoftheseBMPs.
StakeholderswouldbenefitfromregionalcooperationandcoordinationamongandbetweenNGOs,local,state,andfederalgovernmentagencies,environmentalstewardprograms,andtheprivatesector(stormwaterandlandscape‐relatedbusinesses).
AstrategicsummitineasternVirginiawouldprovidestakeholderswithopportunitiestoidentifylocalprogrammaticneedsandbarrierstosuccess,exchangeideas,sharesuccessstories,andformulateplansforcooperativepartnerships.
Executive Summary
vi | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Glossary
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | vii
G LO S S A R Y
ACB AlliancefortheChesapeakeBay
ACE ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment
AOSS AlternativeOn‐siteSepticSystems
ASLA AmericanSocietyofLandscapeArchitects
AWS AnacostiaWatershedSociety
BMP BestManagementPractices
BSD BetterSiteDesign
CBF ChesapeakeBayFoundation
CBNERRS ChesapeakeBayNationalEstuarineResearchReserveSystem
CBP ChesapeakeBayProgram
CBSM Community‐BasedSocialMarketing
CBWM ChesapeakeBayWatershedModel
CCLC ChesapeakeConservationLandscapingCouncil
CSN ChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork
CSO CombinedSewerOverflows
CWP CenterWatershedProtection
CZM VirginiaCoastalZoneManagementProgram
DC DistrictofColumbia
DCR DepartmentofConservationandRecreation
DDOE WashingtonDCDepartmentoftheEnvironment
DDOT WashingtonDCDepartmentofTransportation
DDPR WashingtonDCDepartmentofParksandRecreation
DEE VirginiaDEQDepartmentofEnvironmentalEducation
DEP MontgomeryCounty,MDDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
DEQ VirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality
DGIF VirginiaDepartmentofGameandInlandFisheries
DPW AnneArundelCounty,MDDepartmentofPublicWorks
E&S ErosionandSedimentControl
EARNN EnvironmentalAwardsforRecyclinginNeighborhoods(Norfolk,VA)
Glossary
viii | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
G LO S S A R Y (continued)
EPA USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency
ERP ElizabethRiverProject
HOA HomeOwnersAssociations
GIS GeographicInformationSystems
HRPDC HamptonRoadsPlanningDistrictCommission
JCC JamesCityCounty,VA
JCCPRIDE JamesCityCountyProtectingResourcesInDelicateEnvironments
JCSA JamesCityServiceAuthority
JRA JamesRiverAssociation
LID LowImpactDesign(stormwatermanagement)
LRN LynnhavenRiverNOW
MAST MarylandAssessmentScenarioTool
MD Maryland
MDE MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment
MS4(s) MunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystem(s)
NCCCAP NorthCarolinaCommunityConservationAssistanceProgram
NCRWSA NationalCapitalRegionWatershedStewardsAcademy
NEC NorfolkEnvironmentalCommission
NEIEN NationalEnvironmentalInformationExchangeNetwork
NEMO ChesapeakeNetworkforEducationofMunicipalOfficials
NFWF NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation
NGO(s) Non‐governmentalorganization(s)
NOAA NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration
NPDES EPANationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem
NPS NationalPollutantSystem
ODU OldDominionUniversity
PlantESNatives PlantEasternShoreNativesCampaign
RPA ChesapeakeBayResourceProtectionArea
RFY RiverFriendlyYards(CityofFredericksburg,VA)
Glossary
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | ix
G LO S S A R Y (continued)
SAV SubmergedAquaticVegetation
SITES SustainableSitesInitiative(ASLA)
SSC SpecialStormwaterCriteria(JamesCityCounty,VA)
STAG EPAStateandTribalAssistanceGrant
SWCD(s) SoilandWaterConservationDistrict(s)
TMDL TotalMaximumDailyLoad
VAST VirginiaAssessmentScenarioTool
VCE VirginiaCooperativeExtension
VDOF VirginiaDepartmentofForestry
VDOT VirginiaDepartmentofTransportation
VIMS VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience
VMRC VirginiaMarineResourcesCommission
VoiCes VolunteersasChesapeakeStewards
WIP(s) WatershedImplementationPlan(s)
WQGIT ChesapeakeBayProgramWaterQualityGoalImplementationTeam
WQIF VADCRWaterQualityImplementationFund
WQPC WaterQualityProtectionCharge(stormwaterutilityfeeMontgomeryCounty,MD)
WQSTM ChesapeakeBayWaterQualityandSedimentTransportModel
WSA WatershedStewardsAcademy
Glossary
x | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Table of Contents
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | xi
T A B L E O F CON T E N T S
PAGE
PREFACE.................................................................................................................................................................................i
EXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................iii
GLOSSARY...........................................................................................................................................................................vii
1 Background......................................................................................................................................1‐1
2 EXISTINGMODELPROGRAMS...................................................................................................2‐1
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................2‐1
2.2 CityorCounty‐WidePrograms.................................................................................................................2‐1
2.2.1 AnneArundelCounty,Maryland..............................................................................................2‐1
2.2.1.1 FundingandIncentives.............................................................................................2‐3
2.2.1.2 TrackingandEffectiveness......................................................................................2‐3
2.2.2 Washington,DC...............................................................................................................................2‐5
2.2.2.1 FundingandIncentives.............................................................................................2‐6
2.2.2.2 TrackingandEffectiveness......................................................................................2‐7
2.2.3 MontgomeryCounty,Maryland................................................................................................2‐8
2.2.3.1 FundingandIncentives.............................................................................................2‐9
2.2.3.2 TrackingandEffectiveness......................................................................................2‐9
2.2.4 JamesCityCounty,Virginia.....................................................................................................2‐10
2.2.4.1 FundingandIncentives..........................................................................................2‐10
2.2.4.2 TrackingandEffectiveness...................................................................................2‐12
2.2.5 ArlingtonCounty,VA..................................................................................................................2‐13
2.2.5.1 FundingandIncentives..........................................................................................2‐13
2.2.5.2 TrackingandEffectiveness...................................................................................2‐15
2.2.6 CityofFredericksburg...............................................................................................................2‐15
2.3 Non‐ProfitModelPrograms....................................................................................................................2‐16
2.3.1 ElizabethRiverProject..............................................................................................................2‐16
2.3.1.1 FundingandIncentives..........................................................................................2‐16
2.3.1.2 TrackingandEffectiveness...................................................................................2‐17
Table of Contents
xii | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
T A B L E O F CON T E N T S (continued)
PAGE
2.3.2 LafayetteRiverRestoration.....................................................................................................2‐17
2.3.2.1 FundingandIncentives..........................................................................................2‐18
2.3.2.2 TrackingandEffectiveness...................................................................................2‐19
2.3.3 LynnhavenRiverNOWandtheCityofVirginiaBeach.................................................2‐20
2.3.3.1 FundingandIncentives..........................................................................................2‐21
2.3.3.2 TrackingandEffectiveness...................................................................................2‐22
2.3.4 ReedyCreekWatershedProject–Richmond,VA...........................................................2‐22
2.3.4.1 FundingandIncentives..........................................................................................2‐23
2.3.4.2 TrackingandEffectiveness...................................................................................2‐23
2.3.5 FriendsoftheRappahannock.................................................................................................2‐23
2.3.5.1 FundingandIncentives..........................................................................................2‐23
2.3.5.2 TrackingandEffectiveness...................................................................................2‐24
2.4 SoilandWaterConservationDistricts................................................................................................2‐24
2.5 PlantEasternShoreNativesCampaign..............................................................................................2‐25
2.6 EnvironmentalStewardshipandProfessionalTrainingPrograms........................................2‐25
2.6.1 EnvironmentalStewardsPrograms.....................................................................................2‐25
2.6.2 TrainingforLandscapeProfessionals.................................................................................2‐29
2.7 Resources........................................................................................................................................................2‐30
3 AppropriateBMPs..........................................................................................................................3‐1
3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................3‐1
3.2 UrbanLandUseChangeBMPs...............................................................................................................3‐11
3.2.1 ImperviousUrbanSurfaceReduction.................................................................................3‐11
3.2.1.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐12
3.2.1.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐13
3.2.2 UrbanTreePlanting....................................................................................................................3‐15
3.2.2.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐16
3.2.2.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐16
Table of Contents
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | xiii
T A B L E O F CON T E N T S (continued)
PAGE
3.3 LoadReductionBMPs................................................................................................................................3‐17
3.3.1 UrbanStreamRestoration.......................................................................................................3‐17
3.3.1.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐17
3.3.1.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐17
3.3.2 TidalShorelineBMPs.................................................................................................................3‐18
3.3.2.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐18
3.3.2.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐18
3.3.3 MarineSewageDisposalFacilities........................................................................................3‐19
3.3.3.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐19
3.3.3.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐19
3.3.4 SubmergedAquaticVegetationPlantingsandOysterRestoration........................3‐19
3.3.4.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐20
3.3.4.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐20
3.4 NonStructuralStormwaterManagementBMPs............................................................................3‐20
3.4.1 UrbanNutrientManagement..................................................................................................3‐20
3.4.1.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐21
3.4.1.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐22
3.4.2 ForestBuffers................................................................................................................................3‐22
3.4.2.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐23
3.4.2.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐23
3.4.3 WetlandsRestoration................................................................................................................3‐23
3.4.3.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐24
3.4.3.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐24
3.5 StructuralStormwaterRetrofitBMPs.................................................................................................3‐24
3.5.1 On‐SiteLIDandGreenStreetRetrofits...............................................................................3‐28
3.5.1.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐29
3.5.1.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐30
Table of Contents
xiv | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
T A B L E O F CON T E N T S (continued)
PAGE
3.6 OnsiteSewageBMPs...................................................................................................................................3‐31
3.6.1 SepticConnections......................................................................................................................3‐31
3.6.2 SepticPumping.............................................................................................................................3‐31
3.6.2.1 IssuestoConsider.....................................................................................................3‐31
3.6.2.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐31
3.6.3 SepticDenitrification..................................................................................................................3‐31
4 ISSUESTHATIMPACTFEASIBILITY.........................................................................................4‐1
4.1 Planning.............................................................................................................................................................4‐1
4.2 Implementation..............................................................................................................................................4‐2
4.2.1 CollaborationandPartnerships...............................................................................................4‐4
4.2.2 FundingandIncentives...............................................................................................................4‐5
4.2.3 TrackingandReporting...............................................................................................................4‐6
4.3 CoordinationofServices.............................................................................................................................4‐8
5 ExistingBMPs..................................................................................................................................5‐1
6 SummaryandRecommendations............................................................................................6‐1
6.1 Recommendation#1–EngageinaComprehensivePlanningEffort.......................................6‐1
6.2 Recommendation#2‐FormPartnershipsandCollaborate........................................................6‐2
6.3 Recommendation#3‐ApplyCommunity‐BasedSocialMarketingTechniques.................6‐2
6.4 Recommendation#4–IdentifyFundingSourcesandIncentives.............................................6‐3
6.5 Recommendation#5–DefineAppropriateBMPs...........................................................................6‐3
6.6 Recommendation#6–CoordinatewithPrivateSectortoIncreaseAvailableMaterialsandServices.................................................................................................................................6‐5
6.7 Recommendation#7‐DevelopaDataManagementPlan..........................................................6‐5
6.8 Recommendation#8–Organize,Coordinate,andRefineStewardPrograms.....................6‐5
6.9 Recommendation#9–ConveneaRegionalWatershedStewardStrategicSummit.........6‐6
Table of Contents
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | xv
T A B L E O F CON T E N T S (continued)
PAGE
7 References........................................................................................................................................7‐1
7.1 Program‐SpecificReferences.....................................................................................................................7‐1
7.2 GeneralReferences........................................................................................................................................7‐8
LIST OF APPENDICES
AppendixA GeneralActivityLogandContacts..........................................................................................A‐1AppendixB MontgomeryCounty,MarylandRainscapesProgramOverview...............................B‐1AppendixC LynnhavenRiverNOWWater‐FriendlyRecommendedPractices............................C‐1AppendixD ExamplesofLandscapingWorkshops..................................................................................D‐1AppendixE AdditionalGreenStreetandOn‐SiteLIDRetrofitSummaryTablesand Figures.................................................................................................................................................E‐1AppendixF ChesapeakeBayProgramWaterQualityGoalImplementationTeam Protocol...............................................................................................................................................F‐1AppendixG CBPUrbanTreePlantingExpertPanelConsiderations................................................G‐1AppendixH RetrofitsandReforestationGuidancefromCSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9.............H‐1AppendixI WetlandsWatchOnlineSurvey“WatershedFriendlyActionsin HamptonRoads”..............................................................................................................................I‐1
LIST OF TABLES
Table2‐1: VirginiaEnvironmentalStewardshipPrograms.............................................................2‐27Table3‐1: BMPsApprovedforUseintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2................3‐5Table3‐2: FactorsInfluencingtheSuitabilityofVirginiaApprovedBMPs..................................3‐7Table3‐3: BMPsUsedbyModelPrograms.............................................................................................3‐33Table3‐4: IssuesAssociatedwithLIDversusConventionalBMPs..............................................3‐29Table6‐1: SummaryofCollaborativePlanningEfforts,NGOs,andSWCDsbyLocality.........6‐7
Table of Contents
xvi | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
T A B L E O F CON T E N T S (continued)
PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure3‐1: ChesapeakeBayModelRelationshipsfromSection5oftheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoadforNitrogen,Phosphorus,andSediment.....................3‐2
Figure3‐2: RunoffReductionandNutrientRemovalRatesforVirginiaApprovedBMPs......3‐8Figure3‐3: Maryland’slistofAlternativeUrbanBMPs.........................................................................3‐9Figure3‐4: UniversityofMarylandBMPCostEstimates....................................................................3‐10Figure3‐5: PollutantReductionEfficienciesAssociatedwithImperviousUrban
SurfaceReduction........................................................................................................................3‐12Figure3‐6: Drainage–SurfaceAreaRelationshipsAssociatedWithBMPRetrofits................3‐13Figure3‐7: RetrofitCostEstimates..............................................................................................................3‐14Figure3‐8: SuitabilityofBMPsBasedonContributingDrainageArea.........................................3‐14Figure3‐9: RecommendedTreePlantingEfficiencies.........................................................................3‐16Figure3‐10: FeasibilityofRetrofitsBasedonImperviousCover......................................................3‐26Figure3‐11: BMPRetrofitDesignIssues......................................................................................................3‐27Figure3‐12: CommonLocationsforBMPRetrofits.................................................................................3‐27Figure3‐13: OtherSiteCharacteristicsThatImpactRetrofitFeasibility.......................................3‐28Figure5‐1: LocalitiesinWhich“Watershed‐FriendlyBehaviorinHamptonRoads”
SurveyParticipantsReside........................................................................................................5‐4Figure5‐2: SummaryofLawn/TurfRelatedPracticesfrom“Watershed‐Friendly
BehaviorinHamptonRoads”....................................................................................................5‐5Figure5‐3: SummaryofImperviousSurfaceReduction,On‐siteLID,andotherBMPs
from“Watershed‐FriendlyBehaviorinHamptonRoads”............................................5‐6Figure5‐4: SummaryofBMPsusedbywaterfrontprivatepropertyownersfrom
“Watershed‐FriendlyBehaviorinHamptonRoads”.......................................................5‐7
Section 1 ‐ Background
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 1‐1
1 Background
In2010,theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)establishedtheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)fornitrogen,phosphorous,andsediment.TheTMDLallocationwassubdividedbystatejurisdictionandwatershedbasin.Virginiafurthersubdividedallocationsintolocalgovernmenttargets.EachstatewithintheChesapeakeBayWatersheddevelopedWatershedImplementationPlans(WIPs)toidentifystrategiestomeettheTMDL.
AspartoftheUrbanStormwaterStrategydescribedintheCommonwealth’sPhaseIIWIP,VirginiaidentifiedthefollowingkeymanagementpracticesthattheStateandlocalitiesshouldimplementinordertomeetTMDLloadallocationsforexistingurbanareas(p.7):
ReviseVirginia’sStormwaterManagementRegulationstopreventloadincreasesfromnewdevelopment.
AdditionalBMPsonexistingperviousandimperviouslandsthroughfuturepermitsandwideradoptionofstormwaterutilityfeesorotherfundingmechanisms.
Restrictionsforapplicationofnon‐agriculturalfertilizersandvoluntaryreportingfrom“for‐hire”applicators.
Municipal/countyownednon‐agriculturallandsreceivingnutrientstodevelop,implementandmaintainnutrientmanagementplans.
Golfcoursesimplementnutrientmanagementplans.
Controlsoncertaindo‐it‐yourselfnon‐agriculturallawnandturffertilizers.
IncorporaterequirementswithinVirginia’sStormwaterManagementRegulations(underrevision)thatredevelopmentmeetsreductionsinnutrientandsedimentloads.
InadditiontotheWIPrequirements,urbanizedlocalitiesarealreadysubjecttostatepermitsforMunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystems(MS4s)tocontrolstormwaterrunoffandreducepollutants.ThePhaseIIWIPstatesthattheMS4‐permittedlocalitieswillberequiredtodevelop,implement,andmaintainChesapeakeBayWatershedActionPlansthatareconsistentwiththeWIPandidentifiesthefollowingrequirements(p.24‐5):
TheCommonwealthwillutilizeMS4permitstoensureBMPimplementationonexistingdevelopedlandsachievesnutrientandsedimentreductionsequivalenttoLevel2(L2)scopingrunreductionsby2025.
Level2implementationequatestoanaveragereductionof9percent(%)ofnitrogenloads,16%ofphosphorusloads,and20%ofsedimentloadsfromimperviousregulatedacresand6%ofnitrogenloads,7.25%ofphosphorusloads,and8.75%ofsedimentloadsbeyond2009progressloadsforperviousregulatedacreage.
Level2reductionsarebeyondurbannutrientmanagementreductionsforperviousregulatedacreage.
MS4operatorswillbegiventhreefullpermitscycles(15years)toimplementthenecessaryreductionstomeettheL2implementationlevels.
Ultimately,theserequirementswillnecessitatethatlocalitiesdevelop,orexpandregulatoryand/orvoluntaryprogramstoachievetheBayTMDLandcomplywithMS4permits.Virginia’srevisedstormwaterregulationswerecraftedtoallownewdevelopmentwithoutincreasingthe
Section 1 – Background
1‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
urbannutrientandsedimentloads.However,mostlocalitiesneedtoreduceexistingnutrientandsedimentloadstomeettheWIPtargets.Localitieswillneedtoimplementprojectsonexistingdevelopedpublicorprivateproperty.StormwaterBestManagementPractices(BMPs)thatareinstalledafterapropertyhasbeendevelopedarecalledretrofits.TheinstallationofBMPsretrofitsisachallengingandpotentiallyexpensivestrategytomeettheBayTMDLrequirements.
InsupportofHamptonRoadslocalgovernmenteffortstodevelopPhaseIIWatershedImplementationPlan(WIP)strategies,WetlandsWatch,Inc.conductedaninvestigationintothefeasibility,opportunities,andconstraintsofutilizingBMPsfornutrientreductiononexistingurban/suburbanresidentialandlightcommercialprivateproperty(privateproperty).TheworkwasperformedfortheHamptonRoadsPlanningDistrictCommission(HRPDC)asasubcontractortoCH2MHillandpartiallyfundedthroughagranttotheHRPDCfromtheVirginiaCoastalZoneManagementProgram.Withinathreemonthperiod,throughaseriesofinformationalinterviews,meetingswithstakeholders,literaturesearches,andanonlinesurvey,WetlandsWatchidentifiedandassessed:
ModelProgramsofsuccessfulvoluntaryandmandatedprivatepropertystormwatermanagementprogramsandpractices,includingfinancialincentiveprogramsandutilitycreditsthatHamptonRoadslocalitiescanuseintheireffortstocomplywiththeVirginiaWIPstrategies.
Effortsofnon‐profitorganizations,citizensgroups,andtrainedstewardshipprograms(non‐governmentalorganizations(NGOs))toincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandinstallBMPsintheHamptonRoadsRegion.
TypesofBMPsmostsuitableforimplementationonurbanandsuburbanresidentialandsmallcommercialpropertiesandfactorsthatimpactthefeasibilityandeffectivenessoftheseretrofit‐typeBMPs.
Advantages,disadvantages,obstacles,andunresolvedissuesthatimpactthefeasibilityofachievingnutrientreductionsonprivateproperty.
Availability,quality,andusefulnessofBMPdataassociatedwithexistingNGOprogramsandprojectsinordertodetermineiftheBMPdatacanbeusedbylocalitiestoestimatenutrientandsedimentloadreductionsonprivateproperty.
Informationalinterviews,meetings,workshops,andwebcaststhatWetlandsWatchparticipatedinand/orconductedaresummarizedinAppendixA.Themodelprogramsidentifiedduringthisinvestigationhavereliedonstrategicgovernment/NGOs/privatesectorpartnershipsandutilizedcoordinatedandcollaborativestrategiesto:
Reducecostsofmanagementactions;
Increaseefficiencyofmanagementprograms;
Addressmultipleandoverlappingissues;
Promoteenvironmentalstewardship;and
Facilitate,incentivize,track,and/orreportBMPsonprivateandpublicpropertyinurbanizedareaswithintheChesapeakeBayWatershed.
Section 1 ‐ Background
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 1‐3
TheinvestigationwasdesignedtoexpandonworkoriginallyinitiatedbyWetlandsWatchinLateSpring2011to:
1. IdentifyexistingwatershedstewardactivitiesandprogramsinHamptonRoadsandtheChesapeakeBayRegion;
2. SelectamodelprogramtoemulatethatwouldincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipactionsincludingBMPsandhabitatprotection/restorationinHamptonRoads;
3. IdentifyprogrammaticchangesandresourcesneededtodevelopneworrefineexistingWatershedStewardPrograms;and
4. ConductaStrategicSummittobringinterestedstakeholderstogetherinacollaborativeefforttorefineexistingenvironmentalstewardprogramsandnetworkexistingprogramsandeffortsinHamptonRoads.
PreliminaryfindingswerepresentedataHamptonRoadsWatershedRoundtableWorkshoponJanuary25,2012,attheVirginiaZooinNorfolk,VA.Over50stakeholdersincludinglocalandstategovernmentrepresentatives,VirginiaCooperativeExtensionagents,NGOs,interestedcitizens,andenvironmentalconsultantsandlandscapeprofessionalsattendedtheworkshop.Inadditiontothepresentations,theworkshopincludedafacilitateddiscussionwithattendeesandatour(byZoostaff)ofstormwaterretrofits,livingshorelines,andwetlandsrestorationBMPsinstalledattheZoo.Commentsfromattendeesgatheredduringthediscussionandviafollow‐upcommunicationswereincorporatedintothefindingsofthisreport.
WiththeapprovaloftheHRPDCandtheVirginiaCoastalZoneManagementProgram,thefindingwillbeusedbyWetlandsWatchandtheVirginiamembersoftheChesapeakeBayProgram(CBP)MasterWatershedStewardsActionTeam(ActionTeam)toplanaregional,facilitatedStrategicSummit.
TheActionTeamwasestablishedbytheCBPFosteringChesapeakeStewardshipGoalImplementationTeaminresponsetotheChesapeakeExecutiveOrder13508goal“toexpandcitizenstewardshipbyfosteringadramaticincreaseinthenumberofcitizenstewardsofeveryagewhosupportandcarryoutlocalconservationandrestoration.”TheprimarymissionoftheActionTeamistodeterminehowtoexpandexistingwatershedstewardsprogramstotraincitizenstoorganizeandconductrestorationinaseriesofprioritylandscapesandwatersheds.TheVirginiamembersoftheActionTeaminclude:CarlHershner(VirginiaInstituteofMarineScienceCenterforCoastalResourceManagement),MichellePrysby(VirginiaMasterNaturalists),andShereenHughes(WetlandsWatch).DavidClose,CoordinatoroftheVirginiaMasterGardenersprogram,alsohasbeenincludedintheActionTeam’sdiscussions.Specifically,theVirginiaTeamistaskedwith:
Summarizingprogramsthatarecurrentlyworkingtoengagecitizensandbuildlocalstewards;
Identifyingcommongoalsamongcurrentprograms;
Identifyinggapsandneedsinfluencinggoalattainment;and
Outliningastrategythatwouldincreasecapacityofindividualgroupsaswellasassistinmeetingcollectivegoals.
VIMSandWetlandsWatchidentifiedanadditionalgoaloftrackingstewardshipactionsasBMPsthatcaneventuallybeusedbylocalitiesasanutrientandsedimentreductionWIPstrategy.
Section 1 – Background
1‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐1
2 EXISTING MODEL PROGRAMS
2.1 Introduction
Amajorobjectiveofthisinvestigationwastocompletealiteraturereviewofvoluntaryandmandatedprivatepropertystormwatermanagementprogramsandpractices,includingfinancialincentiveprogramsandutilitycredits.WetlandsWatchconductedaliteraturereviewandidentifiedprogramsandpracticesthatencourage,promote,and/ormandateBMPsonprivatepropertyinMaryland,Virginia,andNorthCarolina.Theseexistingmodelprogramsaresummarizedbelow.Linkstoprogramresourcesarelistedinsection2.7.Someprogramsarecityorcounty‐scale,someareregionalandmulti‐jurisdictional,andothersareconductedatthesub‐watershedscale.Whetheroriginallyinitiatedbylocalgovernment,stateagencies,NGOsand/orSoilandWaterConservationDistricts(SWCDs),allprogramshaveimplementationstrategiesthatincludecollaborationwithotherstakeholdersasameanstoincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandthenumberofBMPsonprivateproperty.
Whilealloftheprogramshighlightedsharesomecommonfeatures,therolesofdifferentstakeholdersandthedegreeofcollaborationbetweenlocalgovernmentstaff,contractors,technicalexperts,watershedgroups,watershedstewards,andcitizensvary.Someprogramsarebasiconesfundedbyfoundations,runindependentlyoflocalandstategovernmentandfocusedonafairlynarrowsetofpractices.OtherprogramsaremoresophisticatedandinvolvegovernmentfundingandincludeawiderangeofBMPs.
2.2 City or County‐Wide Programs
Severalexamplesofcityorcounty‐wideprogramswithintheChesapeakeBayWatershedwereidentified.Programsofthisscaleareprimarilycontrolledbylocalgovernmentagencies,typicallyinitiatedbyenvironmentaldivisions,anddevelopedasplanningtoolstocomplywithMS4permits,localTMDLs,andotherregulatoryrequirements.Byfocusingon“theenvironment”ratherthanjuststormwatermanagement,localitiescantakeabig‐picture,strategicapproachtoaddresstheinter‐relationshipofland‐usedecisions,environmentalregulations,andwatershedmanagement.Programsinthefollowinglocalitiesprovideexamplesofcityandcounty‐wideapproachesthatcanserveasmodelprogramsfortheHamptonRoads:AnneArundelCounty,MD;Washington,DC;MontgomeryCounty,MD;ArlingtonCounty,VA;JamesCityCounty,VA;andtheCityofFredericksburg,VA(seesection2.7forweblinkstoprogramresources).
2.2.1 Anne Arundel County, Maryland
AnneArundelCounty,MD,hasdevelopedaprogramaroundaseriesofsubwatershedmanagementandrestorationplanswithimplementationstrategiesthatrelyoncollaborationbetweendiversegroupsofstakeholders.InformationregardingtheAnneArundelCountyprogramwasobtainedthroughaseriesofcommunicationswithSuzanneEtgen,directoroftheWatershedStewardAcademy(WSA),andon‐linesourcesprovidedintheReferencesectionofthisdocumentunderAnneArundelCounty.Thethreeprogramprioritiesare:
1. ProvidetheDepartmentofPublicWorks(DPW)WatershedRestorationEcosystemandRestorationServiceswithimplementationstrategiesforsubwatershedmanagementandrestorationplansthataddressimpairedwaterwaysandMS4permitconditions;
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
2. Respondtoanddirectlocalwatershedgroupsandconcernedcitizensthatwanttotakeanactiveroleinwatershedrestorationprojects;and
3. Achievestakeholderoutreach,education,andinvolvementassociatedwiththeMS4permitconditions.
TheAnnArundelCountyWatershedStewardsAcademy2011AnnualReportnotesthatDPWandtheArlingtonEchoOutdoorEducationCenter(associatedwithAnneArundelCountyPublicSchools)formedapartnershiptodevelopWSAto“buildcapacitywithineachneighborhood”toreducepollutantsenteringthelocalwaterways.DPWprovidestechnicalsupport,oversight,andguidancetoWSAandWatershedStewards.TheCountydevelopedandmaintainsanon‐linereportingformandGISsystemtotrackandmapWatershedStewardactivitiesandBMPsinstalledonprivateproperty.Thison‐lineGISreportingandtrackingsystemcanbeusedbyanystakeholderthathasinstalledBMPsonprivateproperty.WSAisrunthroughtheArlingtonEchoOutdoorEducationCenterbythreestaffmembers.WSArecruitsandtrainscommunityleadersasWatershedStewardswhoplan,fund,andimplementBMPsintheircommunity.WSAstaff:
Manageandcoordinatetrainingprograms,theWatershedStewardsandtheirprojects,andthevolunteertechnicalsupportnetwork;
Obtainfunding;
Maintainandprovidearesourcelistandtoolbox;and
Ensurethatprojectsandtrainingarecoordinatedwithregulatoryefforts.
WatershedStewardsattenda15‐session,hands‐ontrainingprogramtolearnhowto:
Assesswatersheds,
Developsite‐specificplans,
Educateandengageneighbors,
Reducepollutantsandstormwaterrunoff,
Coordinateandreportactions,
Fundraise,and
Advocateandbuildadvocacy.
Theprivatesectorisinvolvedandengagedthrough:
TheTechnicalConsortium,asupportnetworkofgovernmentandprivatesectorprofessionalsthatprovidetechnicaladviceorexpertiseattherequestofWatershedStewards.
ALandscapeProfessionalsTrainingProgram(throughthelocalcommunitycollege)andaresourcelistofrecommendedcertifiedlandscapingprofessionals,environmentalconsultantsandsuppliers(nurseriesandgardencenters).
DPWandArlingtonEcho,agroupoftechnicalexpertsincludingtheCenterforWatershedProtection(CWP),andotherstakeholdersspent3yearsdesigningtheprogramincludingcurriculum(S.Etgen,personalcommunication,2011).WSApackagedtheprogramtosharewithothersinterestedindevelopingasimilarprogram;asaresult,severalotherWSAshaveformed.MostnotableistheNationalCapitalRegionWSA,acollaborativepartnershipofseveraldifferent
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐3
watershedgroupsthatworksinWashington,DC,MontgomeryCounty,MD,andPrinceGeorgesCounty,MD.
AnotherprogramthatcollaboratesandsupportstheDPW/WSAeffortisRainscaping.org.TheRainscapingCampaignwebsiteisavaluableon‐lineresourcefordo‐it‐yourselfersaswellasWatershedStewards.Thesitepromotesrainscaping,atermusedtodescribeconservationlandscapingandon‐site,low‐impactdevelopment(LID)retrofits(e.g.raingardens,downspoutdisconnections,perviouspavement,etc.).
2.2.1.1 Funding and Incentives
WSAisanon‐profitorganizationfundedbyacombinationofWatershedStewardscertificationfees,NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation(NFWF)andChesapeakeBayTrustgrants,privatesources,andin‐kinddonations.Accordingtothe2011annualreport,administrativecostsarelessthan5%ofthetotalbudgetandthe2012projectedfundingsourcesinclude$125,000fromgrants,$50,000fromprivatesources,and$200,000fromin‐kinddonations.AccordingtoNFWFfiles,WSAreceiveda$500,000NFWFgrantin2011.
TheCountycurrentlydoesnothaveastormwaterutilityfee.TheCountydoesofferastormwatermanagementtaxcredittopropertyownersthatinstallaselectgroupofBMPsontheirproperty;however,conversationswithSuzanneEtgenofWSAindicatethatmostpeopleareunawareofthetaxcreditandtheamountofmoneyisnotsignificantenoughtomotivatepeopletoinstallBMPsandapplyforacredit.AlinktotheCountyBMPtaxcreditformisprovidedinsection2.7andintheReferencesectionofthisdocumentunderAnneArundelCounty.WSAprojectsarepartiallyfundedbygrants;however,WatershedStewardshavetoraisehalfthefundsfortheirprojectsandrecruitcommunitymemberstoinstallandmaintainBMPs.
2.2.1.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
BMPsinstalledaretrackedbytheCountyGIS/databasesystemandthetotalareaofimpervioussurfacemanagedbyBMPsissummarizedbyStormwaterBMPtype.AccordingtotheCounty’s2011report“AnneArundelCountyStormWaterNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem,”theannualestimatedcosttomaintainandmanagetheBMP/MS4databaseandGISsystemforthenextfiveyearsvariesfrom$200,000to$380,000.
ThroughWSA,DPWhasfoundawaytoincreasethenumberofBMPsinstalledonprivatepropertyusingapprovedmethodsthatcanbeusedtocomplywiththeBayTMDLandMS4permits.TheseBMPprojectshavetheadditionalbenefitsofincreasingcitizeninterestandenthusiasmtopracticeenvironmentalstewardship,focusingtheactionsofwatershedgroupsandStewardsinpriorityneighborhoods(includinglowincomeareas),andminimizingcoststhroughtheuseofvolunteersandtrainedStewards.Between2009and2011,the“AnneArundelCountyWatershedStewardsAcademyAnnualReport2011”notesthefollowingsuccesses:
Certified70WatershedStewards;
Identified25newWatershedStewardcandidates;
Engagedover700volunteers;
Donatedover6,500volunteerhours;
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Plantedover6,500nativeplantsandtrees;
Installedover7,700squarefeetofbio‐retention;
Installedover9,200squarefeetofconservationlandscaping;
Installedover409rainbarrels;and
Staged338presentationstoreach11,840countycitizens.
TheAnneArundelCountyWSAprogramwasidentifiedbytheCBPMasterWatershedStewardsActionTeam1asamodelprogramtoemulateinresponsetotheChesapeakeExecutiveOrder13508goal“toexpandcitizenstewardshipbyfosteringadramaticincreaseinthenumberofcitizenstewardsofeveryagewhosupportandcarryoutlocalconservationandrestoration.”MoreinformationonCPB’sFosteringChesapeakeStewardshipGoalImplementationTeam(GIT5)maybefoundonCBP’swebsite:www.chesapeakebay.net/groups/group/fostering_stewardship_goal_implementation_team.
AnneArundelCountyprovidesonemodelapproachforHamptonRoadslocalitiestoconsiderasastrategytoincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandinstallationofBMPs.Severalkeyelementsofthissuccessfulcollaborativeprogramareidentifiedbelow:
Theprogramisorganizedaroundawatershedmanagementandrestorationplanatthesubwatershedlevel.Thisstructurepromotessolutionsthatfocusonlocalprioritiesandareasofconcernbyneighborhood.
Collaboration,Partnerships,andProtocolwereestablishedtoreducecosts,increaseefficiency,identifyandrespondtooverlappinggoals,ensurethatBMPsaredesigned,installedandmaintainedtospecifications,andtrackBMPsinstalled.Inaddition,AnneArundelCountyhasrefinedtheirmethodofoutreachandcommunicationandsynchronizedtheirregionalmessagesandeffortswithlocalcommunity‐levelefforts.
ByrecruitingandorganizingcommunityleadersasWatershedStewardstoworkwithintheirowncommunities,theprogramappliescommunity‐basedsocialmarketingtechniquesthatrelyontrustedadvisors,peerpressure,andsocialdiffusiontoincreasethelikelihoodofpeopletoadoptnewenvironmentally‐friendlybehaviorsandinstallandmaintainBMPsonprivateproperty.
Provideincentivesandassistancetopromotetheidentificationofsite‐specificareasofconcern,recommendappropriateBMPs,andensurethatBMPSaredependablyinstalledandmaintained.
Promotestate‐andEPA‐approvedBMPsthatprovidelocality‐specificsolutionsandhavereadilyavailablestandardsandprotocolsforsiteanalysis,designmodifications,installation,reporting,andmaintenanceforurbanstormwaterretrofits.
Utilizeacombinationoffundingmechanismsincludingin‐kindvolunteerlaborandpartnershipswithnon‐profit,grant‐fundedorganizations.
WorkwiththeprivatesectorandsupportagrowingmarketfortrainedprofessionalsandBMPsuppliesandsuppliers.
1 AlthoughtheMasterWaterStewardsActionTeambecameinactiveduringpreparationofthisreport,Teamco‐chairsJulieWintersandAmyHandenintendtoresumeactivitiesinmid‐2012(personalcommunication,3/29/12).
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐5
Developandsponsorhands‐onworkshopsandcomprehensivetrainingprogramsforlocalstormwaterandlandscapeprofessionals,do‐it‐yourselfers,andWatershedStewards.
Createadatamanagementplantolocate,track,analyze,andreportselectBMPstodemonstrateregulatorycompliance,assessprogramimpacts,andsatisfyfundingsourcereportingrequirements.
2.2.2 Washington, DC
TheWashington,DCDepartmentoftheEnvironment(DDOE)programsandinitiativesareorganizedaroundacomprehensivesustainabilityplan,GreenForward.Byincludingalloftheirsustainabilityeffortsinonecomprehensiveplanningeffort,theDistrictisabletoidentifystrategiesthatprovidemultiplesolutionstocommonproblemsinanultra‐urbanenvironment.Theimplementationstrategiesforthewatershedmanagementandrestorationprogramincludethefollowingstormwaterrebateprograms:RiverSmartHomes,GreenRoofs,RiverSmartCommunities,andRiverSmartWashington.TheseprogramswereinitiatedbytheDDOE
Community‐BasedSocialMarketing(CBSM)
Thisapproachtobehaviorchangegrewoutofarealizationthatsimplyprovidinginformation,training,andincentivesonenvironmentalissueswasnotsufficienttoachievebroadbehaviorchange.Canadianpsychologist,DougMcKenzie‐Mohr,hasdevelopedanewapproachtobehaviorchangethathasgainedwideracceptanceinenvironmentaloutreachandeducationcircles.“Community‐basedsocialmarketingisbaseduponresearchinthesocialsciencesthatdemonstratesthatbehaviorchangeismosteffectivelyachievedthroughinitiativesdeliveredatthecommunitylevelwhichfocusonremovingbarrierstoanactivitywhilesimultaneouslyenhancingtheactivitiesbenefits,”accordingtoMcKenzie‐Mohr.TheCBSMapproachbeginsbyidentifyingspecificbehaviorsyouareseekingtochangeorencourageandthendeterminingaspecificsetofbarriersmitigatingthebehaviorchangeandlookingatincentivesforthechangeyouareseeking.Usingthisinformation,aspecificstrategyisdevelopedtoeffectbehaviorchange–astrategythatinvolvespersonalcontactandreinforcementatthecommunitylevel.“Personalcontactisemphasizedbecausesocialscienceresearchindicatesthatwearemostlikelytochangeourbehaviorinresponsetodirectappealsfromothers,”accordingtoMcKenzie‐Mohr.Thegeneralconsensusamongthoseworkingwithcitizenstoadoptwatershed‐friendlybehavioristhatCBSMisavaluableandsuccessfulmodelthatprovideshigherratesof“reasonableassurance”thatwaterquality‐enhancingbehavioristakingplace.Severaloftheprogramsreviewedinthisreport,includingtheAnneArundelCountyWatershedStewardsAcademy,RiverStarHomesbytheElizabethRiverProject,PearlHomesbyLynnhavenRiverNOWandthePlantESNativesCampaignbytheVirginiaCoastalZoneManagementProgram,havebeendesignedusingCBSMprinciplesoutlinedbyMcKenzie‐Mohr.
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
WatershedManagementDivisiontoaddresscombinedseweroverflows(CSOs),impairedwaters,andtheirMS4permit.Programgoalsinclude:
Reducequantityandimprovequalityofstormwaterrunoff;
Improvegroundwaterquality;
Increasehabitatdiversity;
Promotewatershedstewardship;and
Promotewaterconservation.
DDOEpartnerswithcertifiedandapprovedlandscapingcompanies,localwatershedandcommunitygroups,NCRWSA,stormwaterconsultants,DCDepartmentofTransportation(DDOT),DCPublicSchools,DCDepartmentofParks&Recreation(DDPR),DCWater,andGreenUpDC.GreenUpDCisaweb‐basedcampaignthatallowspropertyownerstotrack,record,andview“green”projectsintheDCarea.BMPsandimpervioussurfacereductionareincludedinthelistof“green”actionsbeingtrackedonthewebsite.
2.2.2.1 Funding and Incentives
FundingfortheDDOEprogramsincludesastormwaterutilityfee,fundingfromNFWF,EPA,andtheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentAct,andtheminimum10%propertyownermatchrequiredforrebatefundedprojects.Byrequiringafinancialcommitmentfromthepropertyowners,DDOEfoundthattheownersweremoreinvestedinthemaintenanceandupkeepoftheBMPsinstalled.
TheRiverSmartHomesprogramisaresidentialincentiveprogramwhichbeganin2007.ItwasoriginallyfundedbyEPAandtheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActthentransitionedtofundingfromastormwaterutilityfee.TheDDOEbegantheprogramwithaseriesofdemonstrationhomeprojectsineachward(areaofthecity),thenexpandedtheprojecttoasmallsubwatershed,PopeBranch.Thepilotprojecttargetedpropertieswithinacommunitywithahighpercentageretired,African‐Americanhomeowners.TheDDOEconducted125auditswhichresultedintheinstallationof100landscapeprojects.
Theprogramhassinceexpanded,largelythroughword‐of‐mouthtootherneighborhoodsandincludesarangeofsocio‐economicparticipation.WithRiverSmartHomes,theCitywillfundupto$1200worthoflandscapingservicesforshadetrees,perviouspavers,rainbarrels,raingardens,andbayscaping(conservationlandscapingwithnativeplants).Throughanonlineapplicationprocess,homeownersrequestasitevisitandstormwateraudit.DDOEstaffvisitthesite,conductthestormwatersiteaudit,andmakeaseriesofrecommendationstothehomeowner.ThehomeownerthenselectsactionsfromtheDDOErecommendationstoinstall.HomeownersagreetoaninspectionbyDDOEafterthelandscapingworkiscompletedandmustpayforapproximately10%ofthelandscapingcost.DDOEhaspartneredwithlocalcontractors,localwatershedgroups,andsomenon‐profitpartnersincludingDCGreenworks,NCRWSA,andtheAlliancefortheChesapeakeBaytoinstalllandscapingBMPs.
Approvedlandscapecontractorsmustattendaone‐daytrainingtobecomeeligibletoinstalltheRiverSmartlandscapes(bayscapingandraingardens).Trainingisfree,offeredeachfallandspring,andincludesaclassroomsessionandahands‐oncomponentwhereparticipantsassistwitharaingardeninstallationataRiverSmartHomessite.CurriculumincludesthegoalsandpurposeofRiverSmartHomes,designandplacementofgardens,andadministrative
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐7
requirements.RiverSmartCommunitiesisaprogramsimilartoRiverSmartHomes,butisgearedtowardsmulti‐familyresidential,smallbusinesses,andhousesofworship.
TheRiverSmartWashingtonprogramisfocusedongreenstreetsstormwaterretrofitprojectsandsupportedbyNFWFgrantfunds.Itisapartnershipbetweengovernmentagencies,NGOs,andtheprivatesectorledbyDDOE,DDOT,DCPublicSchools,DPR,RockCreekConservancy,CaseyTrees,LimnoTech,Inc.,andDCWater.Thisprogramisbasedonthe“greenbuildoutmodel”developedbyCaseyTreesandLimnoTech.DDOEandRockCreekConservancyarerecruitinghomeownersandbusinessownersintwospecificsewershedstoinstallon‐siteLIDretrofits.DDOEalsoisworkingwithDCPublicSchoolsandDPRtoinstallon‐siteLIDretrofitsandgreenroofsonpublicpropertiesandDDOTisaddressingstormwatermanagement,trafficcalmingmeasures,andcommunitycharacterbyinstallingstreetscapingandothergreenstreetretrofits.HomeownersandbusinesseswhoparticipatemustusequalifiedcontractorsthataresupervisedbytheRockCreekConservancyandcanreceiveupto$5,000inrebatesforapprovedwork.Stormsewerflowsaremonitoredtocollectdataonflowreductionassociatedwithgreenstreetretrofits.AccordingtoNFWFfiles,theCityreceivedaNFWFgrantfor$800,000andprovided$2,412,500inmatchingfunds.
TheGreenRoofrebateprogramisco‐managedbyAnacostiaWatershedSociety(AWS)andDDOE.Throughthisprogram,privatepropertyownerscanreceive$5persquarefootof“newvegetatedgreenroof”installed.ApplicationsaresubmittedtoAWS,whichcoordinatesthereviewandapprovalprocess.Uponapprovaloftheproject,propertyownersaregiven10%oftherebatemoney.OnceAWSverifiesinstallationofthegreenroofandDDOEinspectstheroof,propertyownersreceivetheremaining90%oftherebate.Therecipientsagreetomaketheroofavailableforinspectionsandforpublicaccessasademonstrationproject.Recipientsoftherebatesalsosignanagreementtomaintaintheroof.TheGreenRoofrebateprogramisadministeredbytheAWSwithfundsfromtheAnacostiaRiverCleanupandProtectionActof2009(“DCBagLaw”)andtheStormwaterEnterpriseFund.
2.2.2.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
DDOEtracksBMPsandcontrolsthequalityofBMPdesign,installation,andmaintenancethroughinvolvementinsitevisits,audits,BMPrecommendationsandinspections,theuseofpreferredtrainedlandscapersandWatershedStewards,andrequiringasignedmaintenanceagreementwithpropertyowners.
Throughtheweb‐basedsustainabilityinitiativeGreenUpDC,greenenergyandimpervioussurfacereductionprojectscanbereported,trackedandviewedonline.ThesiteallowspropertyownersintheDistricttoplanprojects,viewexistingprojects,andaccessresourcesandinformation.ThefollowingprogramstatisticswerepostedonthiswebsiteonMay10,2012:
ProjectType NumberofProjects ImperviousSurfaceTreated(sqft)
GreenRoofs 2 204RainBarrels/Cisterns 1194 155,185Bayscaping 210 2486PermeablePavement 44 1300RainGardens 113 13,599TreePlanting 919 155,185
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐8 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
FortheRiverSmartHomesprogram,a2010summaryofresultsnoted320homeownersonthewaitinglistforraingardensandbayscaping,demonstratingthesuccessofprogramoutreachandawarenessefforts.
Accordingtoa2010video,RiverStarHomes:GettingSmartAboutRunoffinWashington,DC,theCityhasderivedanumberofbenefitsfromtheRiverStarHomesprogram:
ThesiteauditsallowDDOEstafftointeractwithhomeowners,educateandengagecitizensaboutproblemscausedbystormwater,andempowercitizenstobe“green”throughactionontheirownproperty.
Theprogramformatmakesiteasyandcost‐effectiveforpropertyownerstoinstalllandscape‐scalestormwaterretrofitsandcircumventsdesignandinstallationproblemsencounteredasaresultofpoorlyinformedcitizenry.
Theprogramhelpstobuildownershipoflandscape‐scalesolutionsandcircumventsmaintenanceissuesbyrequiringa10%propertyownercontributionandinspection/maintenanceagreements.
TheCitymaybeabletoavoidthecostofnewstormwaterinfrastructurebyincreasingthenumberoflandscapescalestormwaterretrofitsonprivateproperty.
Resourcesfortheaboveinformationcanbeaccessedthroughthelinksprovidedinsection2.7andintheReferencessectionofthisreportunderWashington,DC.
2.2.3 Montgomery County, Maryland
TheWatershedManagementDivisionoftheMontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)isresponsiblefordeveloping,implementing,andmeasuringtheeffectivenessofawatershedmanagementplan.TheplanandmonitoringstrategieswereprimarilydevelopedtocomplywiththeCountyMS4permit;butalsoaddressescommunityprioritiesandgoals.TheRainscapesprogramisoneexampleofaCounty‐implementedstrategythataddressescommunityprioritiesandMS4permitcompliance.TheMontgomeryCountyprogrambeganin2004andisoneofthelongestrunninglocalgovernmentprogramswithintheChesapeakeBaywatershed.IthasservedasamodelforotherprogramsliketheDCRiverSmartprogramandhasincorporatedlessonslearnedsinceitsinception.MontgomeryCounty,MDhasbeenanearlyadopterofmanysustainableurbangrowthtoolsincludingadoptionofordinancesandpoliciesthatencourageandsometimesrequiregreenbuildingandbettersitedesign.
TheRainscapesprogramisrunbytheCountyDEPandbeganasagrantfundedeffortin2004toincreasestakeholderinvolvementandprovideoutreachaboutlandscapingBMPsandwatershed‐friendlybehavior.TheprogrampromotesBMPsthatreducethevolumeofstormwaterrunoffandresultinmeasurablewaterqualitybenefits.TheRainscapesprogramwasdevelopedthroughacollaborativeefforttorespondtocommunityconcernsandincludescomponentscalledRainscapesRewardsandRainscapesNeighborhoods.
TheRainscapesRewardsprogramaddresseson‐site,residentialBMPs.TheRainscapesNeighborhoodsprogramworkswithwell‐organizedneighborhoodsinspecifichighpriorityareasofasubwatershedtoencourage30%ofprivatepropertyownerstoinstallon‐siteLIDretrofitsandconservationlandscaping.
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐9
2.2.3.1 Funding and Incentives
Asaresultofthelobbyingeffortsoflocalwatershedgroups,theCountyestablishedanincentiveprogramin2006involvingrebatesforapprovedBMPs.Theprogramisfunded,inpart,bytheWaterQualityProtectionCharge(WQPC)collectedaspartofpropertytaxes.Thechargeisbasedontheamountofimpervioussurfaceofaproperty.
ThequalifyingprotocolforaRainscapesprojectrebaterequiresthepropertyownerto:
SubmitanapplicationforreviewandapprovalbyDEPpriortoconstruction;
Allowprojectinspectionuponcompletion;
Submitallinvoicesandreceiptstostaff;and
SignaPropertyOwnerAgreementformthatacknowledgesthattheownerisresponsibleforongoingmaintenanceandallowsCountyaccessforinspectioneveryfiveyears.
BMPsthatareeligibleforrebatesincludeurbantreecanopy,permeablepavement,impervioussurfaceremoval,rainbarrels,cisterns,raingardens,conservationlandscaping,greenroofs,anddrywells.Thetotalrebateavailableis$1,200forresidentialand$5,000forcommercial/institutional/multi‐familyprojects.Inadditiontorebates,theCountyofferstechnicalassistance.
TheCountyhasprofessionallandscaperstrainingandcertificationprogramwhichtheyintendtoexpandthroughthecommunitycollegesystem.AccordingtoAnnEnglishoftheRainscapesprogram,theCountyhasalsorecentlystartedworkingwithNCRWSA(personalcommunication,April16,2012).
2.2.3.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
TheCountyisdevelopingaweb‐baseddatabaseandGISsystemtotrackBMPsinstalledonprivateproperty,aswellastheexpansionofthelandscapercertificationandtrainingprogram.TheCountyisconsideringadditionalcost‐sharemechanismstoexpandthelistofacceptableBMPstorespondtoademandfordrivewayretrofitprojects.
AccordingtoareportbyECONorthwest(2011)ongreeninfrastructure,identifiesthefollowingsuccessesoftheRainScapesprogram:
Planted315trees;
Installed180rainbarrels;
Installed42raingardens;
Installed50conservationlandscapingprojects;
Installed11permeablepavementprojects;
Installed3drywells;
Installed10cisterns;and
Installed2greenroofs.
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐10 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
ECONorthwestestimatesthattheaboveprojectshaveresultedinstormwaterrunoffreductionsof1.9to3.5milliongallonsperyear.
In2011,theDEPpreparedadetailedsummaryoftheRainscapesprogramincludingdifficultiesencounteredduringthedevelopmentandimplementationoftheprogram,howtheprogramhasevolvedovertime,andplannedimprovementstotheprogram(seeAppendixB).Resourcesfortheaboveinformationareprovidedinsection2.7andintheReferencessectionofthisreportunderMontgomeryCounty.
2.2.4 James City County, Virginia
Asaresultofthebuildingboom,whichbeganinthe1990s,thattransformedapproximatelyhalfofthelandfromruraltourban/suburbanandthedesignationoftheentirecountyasaChesapeakeBayProtectionArea,JCCdevelopedland‐useandenvironmentalpolicies,ordinances,andplanstocontrolanddirectgrowth,protectthearea’sculturalandnaturalcharacter,addressstormwatermanagement,andprotectnaturalresources.Thefirstcomprehensivewatershedplancompletedin2001,thePowhatanCreekWatershedPlan,identifiedaneedfortheCountytoincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipthroughoutreach,educationandengagementofcitizens(CWP,2001).
In2002,theCountyestablishedProtectingResourcesInDelicateEnvironments(PRIDE).NowknownasJCCPRIDE,theprogrambeganasajointly‐fundedeffortbetweentheDepartmentofDevelopmentManagement’sEnvironmentalDivision(nowknownasEngineering&ResourceProtection)andtheJamesCityServiceAuthority(JCSA).Currently,theCounty’sGeneralServicesDepartment,StormwaterDivisionistheleadandtheEngineeringandResourceProtectionandPlanningDivisions,togetherwithJCSA,collaborateonmutuallybeneficialprojectsandprograms.JCCPRIDEisnowintransitionastheCountytakesstepstomoveallenvironmentaleducationeffortsundertheJCCPRIDEumbrella.Theprimaryprogramfocuscontinuestobewatershedprotectionemployingeighteducationtoolsthatcanbeusedbycitizensandcivicorganizations:
1. Landuseplanning;
2. Landconservation;
3. Aquaticbuffers;
4. Bettersitedesign;
5. Erosionandsedimentcontrol;
6. Stormwatertreatmentpractices;
7. Non‐stormwaterdischarges;and
8. Watershedstewardshipprograms.
JCCPRIDEhelpedthelocalMasterGardenersdevelopandrunaMasterWaterStewardsprogram(whereinMasterGardenersreceiveadditionaltrainingtobecertifiedasMasterWaterStewards)andcontinuestoofferworkshopsforlocalcitizensandlandscapeprofessionals.
2.2.4.1 Funding and Incentives
Throughworkshops,demonstrationandgrantprojects,amini‐grantprogram,andmediapromotions,theJCCPRIDEprograminformsandengagescitizensoncriticalwatershedissues
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐11
andbestmanagementpractices.JCCPRIDEhaspartneredwithanumberofnon‐profitlocalandregionalwatershedorganizationsinanumberofdemonstrationprojectsonCountyproperty,onprivateresidentialproperty,andonlocalbusinessandchurchpropertiesthroughoutthecounty.Pastpartnersincludethefollowingentities:WilliamsburgLandConservancy;ChesapeakeBayFoundation(CBF);JamesRiverAssociation;FriendsofPowhatanCreek;AlliancefortheChesapeakeBay;CWP;VirginiaCooperativeExtension(VCE);MasterGardeners;localyouthgroups;privatepropertyowners;privateconsultantsandsuppliers;ColonialSWCD;andothers.
In2006‐07,JCCpartneredwiththeColonialSWCDandlocalneighborhoodhomeownersassociations(HOAs)ona$200,000,DCR‐andNFWF‐fundedgrantprojectentitled“CommunityConservationPartnership.”Theprojecttargetedprioritycommunitiesidentifiedbycountystaff.TheColonialSWCDandJCCstaffconductedauditsanddevelopedaseriesofrecommendedBMPs;communitymembersandbusinesseswererecruitedtoassistwithBMPinstallations.MatchinggrantfundsourcesincludeJCCPRIDEmini‐grants,volunteerlabor,andin‐kinddonations.Thetypesofprojectsincludedstormwaterpondupgrades,stormwaterretrofitsinVDOTright‐of‐ways,bufferplanting,treeplanting,wetlandsplanting,andstreambankstabilizationprojects.HOAssignedrequiredBMPmaintenanceagreementsthatincludedthefollowingconditions:
Maintaintheprojectwith2”mulch;
Plantmaterialmustbeproperlymaintained;deadplantsaretobereplacedwithconsistentlysizedandspecifiedplants;
Maintainprojectsfor5years;
Keepstormwaterinletsfreeofmulchandplantdebris;
Noheavyequipmentallowedinlandscapedarea;
Additionalplantingsorexpansionmustbepre‐approvedbySWCD;and
Soilamendments(limeorfertilizers)mustbeappliedinaccordancewithstatespecifications.
TurfLoveisaVirginiaCooperativeExtension‐runnutrientandturf/lawnmanagementprogramthatpromotesenvironmentallyresponsiblelawncareandtechniquesandturfvarietiestoreducewateruse.Programparticipationistypicallyrequiredasaconditionofapprovalfornewdevelopment.Anutrientmanagementplannerassessestheproperty,collectssoilsamplesanalyzedbyVirginiaTech,developsanutrientandturfmanagementplan,andeducatespropertyownersonlawncaretoreducenutrients,maintainahealthypermeablelawn,andreducewateruse.TheprogramispromotedbyJCCPRIDEandJCSAandisfundedbytheparticipants,JCSA,andtheCounty.TurfLoveemployeesareVCE‐staffandarecertifiedasnutrientmanagementplannersthroughtheVADCRprogram.Initialfundingfortheprogramwas$40,000/year;however,inthepastseveralyearsfundinghasdeclineddespitetheincreaseindemandforprogramservices.
TheStormwaterDivisionrecentlyreceiveda$75,000,15‐monthNFWFgranttobeginaGardenLoveprogramwhichisanextensionoftheTurfLoveprogram.GardenLove,apartnershipbetweentheCounty,VCE,andthelocalMasterGardeners,isanincentiveandassistanceprogramthatpromotesandfundstheinstallationofraingardensonprivateproperty.Withthegrantmoneyand$63,000inmatchingfunds,theprogramhopestoinstall60raingardensandincreasethenumberofnutrientmanagementplansto300.JCCPRIDEexpectsthisprogramto
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐12 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
continuebeyondtheNFWFgrantperiodwithCountyfunding.Participantssignamaintenanceagreementforaperiodof5years,withfollowupinspectionsbyCountyStormwaterDivisionstaff.RaingardenlocationswillbetrackedthroughtheCounty’sexistingBMPtrackingprocedures.
JCSArunstheBeWaterSmartrebateprogramthatpromotesreducedwateruseandoffersrebatesof$25forrainbarrels,upto$700forcisterns,and$150to$250forprofessionallydesigned“watersmart”landscaping.
Otheractivitiesandpartnershipsincludearesummarizedbelow:
TheWilliamsburgLandConservancyrecruitedprivatepropertyownerstoplace900acresoflandintoConservancy‐ownedandmanagedconservationeasements.
AJCCParksandRecreationDepartmentimplementedalivingshorelineprojectfundedbya$100,000ChesapeakeBayTrustgrant.TheprojectwasdesignedinhouseandpermittingwassecuredbyCountystaff.CBFstaffandvolunteersfromthecommunityassistedwiththeprojectinstallation.Therestorationeffortwasidentifiedinthe2009ShapingOurShoresmasterplandevelopedfortheCounty’spropertyfrontingtheJamesRiver.
2.2.4.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
AccordingtoCountyfiles,theSWCDandJCCPRIDECommunityConservationPartnershipresultedinthefollowing:
Installationof5filtrationpracticesthattreatstormwaterrunofffrom10acres;
Installationof6infiltrationpracticesthattreatstormwaterrunofffrom13acres;and
Installationoferosion&sedimentcontrolprojectsthatmanage4acres.
Inaddition,theprojectresultedintheeducationandengagementofcitizensfromseveraldifferentneighborhoodsthroughouttheCounty.
TurfLovestaffreportthenumberofnutrientmanagementplanswrittenonaquarterlybasistoJCCandonanannualbasistoDCR.TurfLovereportsthefollowingsuccesseswithnutrientandturfmanagementonprivateproperty(2006‐present):
Completionof150to250nutrientmanagementplansperyear,primarilyonresidentialproperties,totaling1594planstodate;
Atotalof811acresundernutrientmanagement,including8golfcoursesand44acresofcommonlandin2subdivisions;and
Resultsoffollow‐upsurveyswithparticipantsshowhighcompliancerateswiththenutrientmanagementplans.
JCSAkeepsdetailedrecordsabouttherainbarrelsandcisternsinstalledonprivatepropertythroughtherebateprogram.Sincetheprogramstartedin2008,citizenshavereceivedrebatesfor991rainbarrelsand4cisternswithatotalcapacityof136,578gallons.AlthoughseveralcitizenshaveappliedfortheBeWaterSmartlandscapingrebate,noonehasmetthequalificationstoreceivearebate.However,manycitizensthatreceivedrainbarrelrebatesindicatedaninterestininstallingothertypesofBMPretrofitsontheirproperties.This
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐13
informationprovidesJCCstafftheopportunitytocontactthesehomeownerstoidentifythosewhohavealreadyinstalledadditionalmeasures,aswellasownerswhomaybeinterestedininstallingadditionalBMPsifgivenenoughincentiveorassistance.
JCCengineeringstaffreportsthatlandscapeconsultantsforprivatepropertyprojectsinvolvingRPAorwetlandsdisturbanceshavebeguntodesignplansthataremoreenvironmentallysensitiveandminimizedisturbances.StafffeelsthatthiscanbeattributedtoJCCPRIDEactivitiesaswellasCountyordinancesandpolicies.
JCCinformationresourcesforthisreportincludecountyfilesandon‐linedocumentsandinterviewswithstaffoftheJCCEngineeringandResourceProtectionandStormwaterDivisions,JCSA,ColonialSWCD,alocalCooperativeExtensionagent,MasterGardeners,andmembersoftheFriendsofPowhatanCreek(alocalwatershedgroup).2InformationlinksareprovidedintheJamesCityCountyReferencesectionofthisdocument.
2.2.5 Arlington County, VA
ArlingtonCounty,VA,DepartmentofEnvironmentalServicesandArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment(ACE)havemanyinter‐relatedgreen‐buildingandstormwatermanagementpolicies,programsandstrategiestoincentivizeandincrease“green”practicesandstormwaterretrofitsonpublicandprivateproperty.Over60%oftheCountyiscoveredbyimpervioussurfacesandmuchoftheCountywasdevelopedwithoutstormwaterfacilitiestocaptureandtreatstormwater.
ACEisaNGOthatwasfoundedby,andisprimarilyfundedbytheDepartmentofPublicWorksasanoutreach,education,andinvolvementorganization.Italsoraisesfundsasanon‐profitgroup.ACEservesasthegatekeeperofCountyenvironmentalstewardshipprograms.Theorganizationmanagesandpromotesenvironmentalstewardshipandsustainableliving(greenpractices)initiativesincluding:alittercontrolprogram;treeplantingprogram;wild‐lifehabitatcertificationprogram;theLivableNeighborhoodsWaterStewardshipProgram;andStormwaterWiseLandscapes(anewincentiveprogram).
Arlingtonalsorunsworkshopsforprofessionallandscapingcompanies.TheCountyiscurrentlyworkingwithCWPtodevelopstormwaterretrofitsplans,includinggreenstreetsretrofits,forallthesubwatershedsinArlington.
2.2.5.1 Funding and Incentives
TheCountyfundsstormwaterandwatershedmanagementprimarilythroughtwofundingmechanisms.In2008,theCountyestablishedtheArlingtonSanitaryDistrictandbegancollectingtheArlingtonSanitaryDistrictTax,whichtaxespropertyowners1.3centsper$100oftheassessedvalueofaproperty.Thetaxdollarscollected($5to$7milliondollarsperyear)areplacedinastormwatermanagementfundthatfundsthestormwatermanagementprogram.Inaddition,theCountyestablishedaWatershedManagementFundthatcollectsfeesfromdevelopersinlieuofBMPimplementationwhenimplementationisnotfeasible.
2 ShereenHughesofWetlandsWatch,primaryauthorofthisreport,haspersonalknowledgeandexperiencegainedasaJCCPlanningCommissioner,andmemberofthe2010ComprehensivePlanUpdate,GreenBuildingandBSDImplementationCommittees.
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐14 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Approximately$2.98millioninEPAStateandTribalAssistanceGrants(STAG)distributedbytheVirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityfrom2004to2011provideanothersourceoffundsforArlington.TheSTAGgrantsarebeingusedbyArlingtonandtheCityofAlexandriatoimplementtheFourMileRunRestorationMasterPlan(ArlingtonCountyBoardAgendaItemforMeetingofJune11,2011).
TheCounty’sincentiveprogramstoincreasestormwaterretrofitsandwatershedrestorationBMPsonprivatepropertyincludethefollowing:treeplantingprogram;environmentalstewardshiptrainingprogram(LivableNeighborhoodWaterStewards);andtheStormwaterWiseLandscapesProgram.Thetreeplantingprogramprovidesgrantstocommunitygroupstoplanttreesandcontractslocalcompaniestoplantthetrees.TheLivableNeighborhoodsWaterStewardshipProgramisanationalprogramdevelopedbytheEmpowermentInstituteasacommunityoutreach,education,andinvolvementtoolforlocalitieswithPhaseIIMS4permits.Theprogramusescommunity‐basedsocialmarketingtechniquestorecruitandtraincommunityleaderstoorganizeresidentstoconducthomeaudits.Auditsidentifyopportunitiestoadoptwatershed‐friendlyhabits,implementBMPs,andreducewaterusewithsimplelifestylechanges.Theprogram,nowcalledtheWaterStewardshipTeamprogram,isapartnershipbetweenACE,FairfaxCounty,theCityofFallsChurch,theCityofAlexandriaandtheNorthernVirginiaSWCD.
StormwaterWiseLandscapesisanewDepartmentofEnvironmentalServices/ACEpartnershipthatwillpartiallyfundon‐siteLIDretrofitson40privateresidentialorbusinessproperties.CountystaffwillperformstormwaterauditsandprovidepropertyownerswithguidanceonrecommendedpracticesmapsshowingexistingsiteconditionsandrecommendedBMPs,andalistofcontractors.Oncepropertyownershaveinstalledatleastonerecommendedpractice,theymustarrangeforaninspectiontobeperformedbyCountystaff.Oncenotifiedofprojectapproval,propertyownerssubmitreceiptstoACEforgrantdisbursements.Propertyownersmustagreetomaintainthepracticeinstalledandwillbefeaturedinacasestudy(McDonnellandJolicoeur,2012).
BMPsavailableforreimbursementof50%oftheprojectcostinclude:cisterns;conservationlandscapes(conversionoflawnornon‐nativeinvasiveplantingstonativeplantings);greenroofs;infiltrationtrenchesanddrywells;perviouspaversorconcretefordriveway,walkway,andpatioinstallations;removalofimperviouspavement;andraingardens.Thesizeoftheconservationlandscape,greenroof,orperviouspavementprojectsmustbeaminimumof150squarefeet.Thetotalamountofreimbursementdependsonthetypeofpracticeinstalledandrangesfrom$500to$1000perpractice.
ChristinJolicoeur,awatershedplannerwithArlingtonCounty,indicatedthatStormwaterWiseLandscapesisanMS4‐relatededucationandoutreachprogramthatisfundedthroughtheArlingtonCountyWatershedManagementFund(personalcommunication,March15,2012).TheWatershedManagementFundreceivesfeesthatarepaidinlieuofon‐sitestormwatermanagementduringdevelopment/redevelopmentactivities.Educationandoutreach,alongwithBMPimplementation,areconsideredacceptableusesofWatershedManagementFundmonies.
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐15
2.2.5.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
WhiletheBMPspromotedthroughtheStormwaterWiseLandscapesprogramcouldbeusedtoachievecreditfortheChesapeakeBayTMDL,Arlingtonistreatingtheprogramasanoutreach,education,andengagementactivityfortheMS4permit.
WithrespecttotheLivableNeighborhoodsWaterStewardshipProgram,theACEwebsitereportsthefollowingsuccessessincetheprogrambeganin2003:
Over250householdsand41neighborhoodteamshavetakenover1000newactionstoprotectwaterqualityandconservewater.
Programparticipantsreducedwaterusagebyatotalofmorethan3.4milliongallonsperyear.
Eachparticipatinghouseholdadoptedanaverageof8newactions.Themostpopularactionsinclude:reducinguseoftoxiccleaners,findingandrepairingwaterleaks,reducingwateruseduringteethbrushinganddishwashing,andinstallingrainbarrels.
SeveralstakeholdersinterviewednotedthattheCountyfeltthattheLivableNeighborhoodsprogramhasreachedamarketsaturationpointandadditionalprogramswereneededtoachievemoreon‐siteretrofits;theStormwaterWiseLandscapesProgramisaresponsetofillthatneed.
2.2.6 City of Fredericksburg
TheCityofFredericksburghasrecentlyinitiatedalawnmanagementprogramincoordinationwiththeRappahannockRiverBasinCommission.TheprogramisbeingmanagedandcoordinatedbyConserv(anNGO)andotherpartnersincludingtheFriendsoftheRappahannock,TheNationalWildlifeFederation,GeorgeWashingtonUniversityLandscapeDesignDepartment,andBioGreen(aprivatecorporation).
KevinUtt,sitedevelopmentmanagerfortheCity,describestheRiverFriendlyYards(RYF)programas“an environmental incentives program to stimulate conversion of existing conventional lawn to ‘River Friendly Yards’” (personalcommunication,April21,2012). RFY landscapes are composed of elements that reduce nutrient loads to nearby streams. Program benefits to residents include homeowner technical assistance, participant recognition, financial incentives, education and outreach. An interesting aspect of theRFYprogramis the effort to develop tools and training to involve the private sector in installation and tracking of landscaping BMPs on private property.
Theprogramisamultiyeareffortthatwillprovideenvironmental,community,andeconomicbenefits.Programactivitiesincludethedevelopmentofcriteriaforlawn‐to‐RFYconversion,quantificationofpollutantreductionsfromRFYconversion,creationofaprogrammonitoringsystem,developmentofexamplesofconversionlevelsandassociatedcosts,andeconomicimpactanalysis.OpportunitiesforjobcreationandnewincomeassociatedwithRFYconversionswillalsobeidentified.TheprogramwillalsoexaminethefeasibilityofanRFYVirginianutrientcredittomeetemergingTMDLimplementation.Additionalinformationisavailableontheprogramwebsite:www.riverfriendlyyard.com.
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐16 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
2.3 Non‐Profit Model Programs
Non‐profitNGOsspearheadnumerousindependentprogramstoincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandincreasethenumberofBMPsonprivateproperty.NGOprogramsrepresentanunder‐recognizedandunreportedsuiteofBMPsthatcouldbeusedtowardachievingMS4permitandChesapeakeBayTMDLcompliance.Thissectiondescribesnon‐profitmodelprogramsthatarerunbyNGOsandarefundedbyfoundationsourceswithin‐kindcontributionsfrommembers,landowners,businesses,andlocalgovernments(seesection2.7forweblinkstoprogramresources).
TheNatureConservancy,CenterforWatershedProtection(CWP),ChesapeakeBayFoundation(CBF),andtheAlliancefortheChesapeakeBay(ACB)areexamplesoflargeorganizationsthathavepartneredwithlocalorganizationsandgroups.TheseNGOshavenumerousgrantprojectsand/orgovernmentcontractsandlocalofficesinVirginia.TheJamesRiverAssociation(JRA)isanexampleofaregional,river‐specificNGOinVirginiathathasinitiatedwatershedrestorationprojectsinHamptonRoads.TheElizabethRiverProject(ERP)andLynnhavenRiverNOW(LRN)areexamplesoflocal,river‐specificwatershedorganizations.ERPandLRNuseaward‐winningtechniquesandprogramstoimprovewaterquality,reducestormwaterrunoff,protectandrestorehabitat,andincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipintheirwatersheds.Therearemanygrant‐fundedprojectsdesignedandimplementedbylocalenvironmentalandwatershedgroups.Examplesofprojectswiththemostcomprehensiveprogramsaredescribedbelow.
2.3.1 Elizabeth River Project
TheElizabethRiverWatershedincludesfourlocalities:Norfolk,Chesapeake,Portsmouth,andVirginiaBeach.TheElizabethRiverProjectisheadquarteredinPortsmouth,VAand,accordingtotheorganization’swebsite,hasbeenworkingforalmost20years“torestoretheElizabethRivertothehighestpracticallevelofenvironmentalqualitythroughgovernment,businessandcommunitypartnerships.”Themostrecentwatershedactionplan,“ARiveroftheFuture,”wasdevelopedthrougha100‐stakeholdercollaborativeprocessandidentifies7priorityactionsandanimplementationstrategytoachievethosegoals.
2.3.1.1 Funding and Incentives
ERPhasusedlargegovernmentgrantsandfundingfromavarietyofothersourcestoconductstudies,implementstrategies,installandmaintainBMPdemonstrationprojects,andeducateandengageawiderangeofstakeholders.SomemajorERPprojectsinclude:MoneyPointinChesapeake,ParadiseCreekandParadiseCreekNatureParkinPortsmouth,andtheLafayetteRiverRestorationprojectinNorfolk.
FortheParadiseCreekNaturePark,ERPinitiallyraised$1.4milliontobuythepropertyandhasraised$12milliontodate.VirginiaDCR,theCityofPortsmouth,VirginiaLandConservationFoundation,andtheVirginiaPortAuthorityhavecontributed$500,000ormoretotheparkproject.CSXCorporation,EPA(TargetedWatershedInitiativeGrant),NFWF,TheVirginian‐Pilot,TowneBankFoundation,andVirginiaDCR(VirginiaRecreationTrailsGrant)havecontributed$100,000to$499,000totheproject.Anumberofotherfoundations,organizations,localbusinessesandprivateindividualsalsohavecontributedfunds.
AnotherfundingmechanismusedbyERPistheLivingRiverRestorationTrustmitigationprogramestablishedin2004asapartnershipbetweenERPandtheU.S.ArmyCorpsof
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐17
Engineers.TheprogramreceivesmitigationfundsfromtheU.S.ArmyCorpofEngineersand,accordingtotheTrustwebsite,www.livingrivertrust.org,programfundsareexpendedasfollows:
[F]undsareusedtooffsetimpactsthatcannotbeavoidedbyachievingasmanybenefitsaspossibletotheElizabethRiverecosystem.Currently,fundsprimarilyareexpendedforprojectsthatcleanupcontaminatedriverbottom.Thiscompensatesoff‐siteforharmtohealthyriverbottomwhenpermitteesconductnewdredgingorfillingprojectsforwhichgovernmentagenciesrequiremitigation…andthisinnovativefundingmechanismisthefirstofitskindintheUnitedStates.
ThroughtheRiverStarBusinessesprogram,ERPworkswithlocalbusinessesandindustry,localgovernment,federalfacilities,andpublicandprivateinstitutionstoidentifyareasofconcern,developrestorationplans,andinstallandmaintainBMPs.Sincetheprogrambeganin1997,ERPhasrecruitedalmost100participantbusinessestovoluntarilyrestoretidalwetlands,installnativeplantbuffersandlivingshorelines,andinstallpollutioncontrolmeasures.ERPstaffpartneredwithlocalenvironmentalconsultingfirms(BayEnvironmentalandWilliamsburgEnvironmentalGroup)todevelopandimplementrestorationprojects.ERPhasanannualawardmeetingthatrecognizesthecontributionsandactionsoftheselocalRiverStarBusinesses.
TheRiverStarHomesisanERPresidentialprogramthatrecruitshomeownerstocommittoaminimumof“7easysteps”thatprovideasolutiontopollutantsofconcernwithinthewatershed:Scoopthepoop;reducefertilizersonlawns;don’tfeedthegeese;useboatpumpoutfacilities;don’tflushmedicinesorgreasedownthedrains,andprotectstormdrainsfromgrassclippings,leaves,andoil.Althoughavailabletotheentirewatershed,ERPhasaNFWFgrantforaRiverStarHomespilotprojectintheLafayetteRiversubwatershed.
2.3.1.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
ERPmaintainsacumulativeannualsummaryofactionstakenandpollutionreducedbyRiverStarBusinessesandin2011reportedthefollowing:
Conservationand/orrestorationof92.82acresofhabitat(“habitat”includeswetlands,bufferplanting,raingardens,forestedareas,butterflygardens,andpondbuffers);
Preventionof11.89millionpoundsofhazardouswasteandsedimentpollution;
Preventionof222millionpoundsoftrashanddebris‐typepollution;and
Installationof25,340plants.
MoreinformationaboutERPisavailableonthewebsite:www.elizabethriver.org.
2.3.2 Lafayette River Restoration
TheLafayetteRiverRestorationprojectisamodelpartnershipbetweenERPandCBFthatdemonstratescoordinatedstrategiestoincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandincreaseBMPsonprivateproperty.In2009,thetwopartnersbegantoco‐organizeandco‐directtheLafayetteRiverSteeringCommittee,whichtheERPwebsitedescribesasa“groupofover100stakeholdersrepresentingscience,government,businessandcitizeninterests”.TheCommitteegoalsandstrategieswereidentifiedbyconsensusandaresummarizedintheLafayetteRiverRestorationPlan.Theprimarygoaloftheplanistoreducebacteriaandnutrientlevelsinthe
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐18 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Rivertoallowsafeswimming,limitedharvestingofoystersby2014,andopenharvestingofoystersby2020.Differentorganizations,institutions,privateconsultants,businesses,andcitizenshaveassumedprojectresponsibilitiesmostsuitedtotheirabilitiesandmissions.CBFandERPcoordinateprojectefforts,identifyopportunitiesforcollaboration,trackoverallprogress,andrecommendprojectimprovementswhenneeded.CBF’scontributionshaveincluded:
Oysterrestorationprojectsusinginnovativetechniques;
Recruitingandtrainingcitizenstobeenvironmentalstewardsandadvocatesthroughoystergardeningworkshops,theVoiCeSstewardshipprogram,andeducationalfieldtrips;and
Technicalandmanagerialexpertiseoflocalandorganization‐widestaff.
ERPprovidestechnicalandmanagerialexpertisefortheprojectandalocalmotivationalforcethatengagescitizens,organizations,businesses,andgovernmentthroughprojectsandtheRiverStarprograms.
2.3.2.1 Funding and Incentives
FundingsourcesfortheLafayetteRiverRestorationprojectincludetheLivingRiverRestorationTrustmitigationprogram,grantsfromNFWF,VirginiaDCR,andEPA,anddonationsfromERPmembers,theUnitedWay,Lowes,andothersources.PartofthefundingfortheLafayetteRiverRestorationeffortwasa$135,000NFWFgrantobtainedbyCBFtoreducenutrient,sediment,andbacteriapollution.AccordingtofilesprovidedbyNFWF,ERPreceiveda$300,000NFWFgrantin2011toworkwithasocialmarketingexpert(Dr.DougMcKenzie‐Mohr),theCityofNorfolk,andtheHamptonRoadsSanitationDistricttodevelopRiverStarHomesintoaneffectivemodelforfosteringcitizenbehaviorsthatreducenutrientsandsediments.VirginiaDCRhasalsobeenamajorcontributorofmatchingfundsandstafftime.ERPandCBFhavebeenabletoleverageallofthefundingsourceswithpublicinvestmentinstormwaterandwastewatertreatmentplantupgradesbytheCityofNorfolkandtheHamptonRoadsSanitationDistrict.ERPandCBFhavealsopartneredwithmarinas,schools,RiverStarBusinesses,theHermitageMuseum,LafayetteWetlandsPartnership,OldDominionUniversity,theVirginiaZoo,civicleagues,andmanyotherorganizationstoimplementtheLafayetteRiverRestorationPlanandengageandeducatestakeholders.
IncentiveprogramsdevelopedbyERPinclude:RiverStarHomes,RiverStarSchools,andRiverStarBusinesses.TheRiverStarBusinessesprogramrecognizesandpromotesparticipatingbusinessesatanawardsceremonyandontheERPwebsite.RiverStarSchoolsthatmeettheprogram’sModelLevelareawardedatrophy,certificates,andaschoolbannerforservingmorethan“oneyearintheprogram,implementingextraordinaryprojectsandmentoringand/ortakingprojectsoutoftheclassroomandintothecommunity,”accordingtoERP’ssummary“2010‐2011Achievements,RiverStarSchools&YouthOrganizations.”TheRiverStarHomesparticipantsreceiveafront‐yardflagthatpromotesthepropertyasaprogramparticipant,helpfultipsonhowtodomore,andinvitationstooutdooreventsandworkshops.Currently,ERPstaffandanorganiclawnspecialistarevisitingRiverStarHomesintheLafayetteWatershedtotestsoilanddeveloporganicurbannutrientmanagementplanstoreducefertilizeruseby50%.ERPstaffareconsideringotherincentivessuchasproviding$50rebatestohomeownerswhoinstall132gallonrainbarrelsandholdingraingardenblockparties.
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐19
TheCityofNorfolkhasanumberofincentiveprogramsthatcouldbeusedtopromoteandpartiallyfundBMPsonprivatepropertyincludingCelebrateTrees,atreeplantingprogram,$65dollarrainbarrel‐makingworkshops,andKeepNorfolkBeautiful.KeepNorfolkBeautifulisaprogramoftheNorfolkEnvironmentalCommission(NEC),anon‐profitorganizationandabranchoftheCityofNorfolkDepartmentofPublicWorksthatmanagesanenvironmentalrewardsprogramforcivicleaguesintheCityofNorfolk.ThrougharewardsprogramcalledEnvironmentalAwardsforRecyclinginNeighborhoods(EARNN),civicleaguescanearncashrewardsforstormwatermanagementeffortsanddistributingstewardshipinformation.In2011,25civicleagueswereenrolledintheprogram.Inaddition,theCityco‐sponsorsRiverfest,anannualfestivalthatpromotesenvironmentalstewardship,restorationefforts,andprogressintheLafayetteRiverwatershed.
2.3.2.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
ReportingandtrackingdataforBMPsinstalledonprivatepropertyintheElizabethRiverWatershedvariesdependingonthegrantfunder’srequirementsandtheNGO.Thereisaneedforstandardizingthereportingformat,reportinginterval,andtypeofdatatrackedandreportedonBMPsinstalledthroughvoluntaryprograms.NFWFrecords,onlineERPreports,andtheLafayetteWetlandsPartnershipwerereviewedduringthepreparationofthisreport.ERPalsohasbeentherecipientofVirginiaDCRWaterQualityImplementationFund(WQIF)grants.DataforBMPsinstalledusingWQIFfundsaretrackedandreportedtoDCRusingthe“AttachmentD–NPSBestManagementPracticesPollutionReductionTrackingDataForm.”
TheNFWFreportforCBF’sgrantliststhefollowingsuccesses:
Planted125urbantrees;
Createdhabitatfor30,000oysters;
Installed20stormwaterrunofffiltrationsystems;
Installed2floatingwetlands;
Installed3raingardens;and
Installeda0.5‐acrelivingshoreline.
AccordingtodiscussionswithERPstaff,BMPswereinstalledattheVirginiaZoo,onCityofNorfolkandODUpropertyasdemonstrationprojects,andwithintheriveroronprivatewaterfrontproperty.
TheVirginiaZooinNorfolkandTheHermitageMuseumarejusttwoexamplesofcollaborativeprojectswithintheRiverStarBusinessesprogram.BayEnvironmental,ERP,CBF,LafayetteWetlandsPartnership,theCityofNorfolk,MasterGardeners,ZooStaff,andmanyotherscollaboratedonaseriesofgrant‐fundedprojectstoinstallseveraldemonstrationprojectsincludingwetlandsrestorations,raingardens,greenroofs,rainbarrels,andafloatingwetlandattheVirginiaZoo.ERP,CBF,NOAA,Hermitagestaffandmanyvolunteersinstalledalivingshoreline,nativebufferplantings,andnativeplantdemonstrationgardensthroughouttheMuseumgrounds.
Atlastcount,ERPhad695privatepropertyownerssignuptobecomeRiverStarHomes.ERPthenconductedasurveytoidentifyhomeownersinterestedinadoptingotherBMPsinadditiontothe“7easysteps”.ERPhascontractedoutthelawnassessment/planstoanindependent
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐20 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
contractorwhospecializesinorganiclawncareandnutrientmanagement.OneprivatepropertyownerhasagreedtoceasemowingwetlandsintheirbackyardandsignedaletterofcommitmenttopreservethewetlandswiththeNorfolkEnvironmentalDivision.ProjectanalysesperformedandguidanceprovidedbyDr.McKenzie‐MohrwillprovidevaluableinformationrelevanttoHamptonRoadsthatotherlocalitiesandNGOscanusewhenplanningfutureprograms.
TheLafayetteWetlandsPartnershipisanotherlocalNGOcollaboratorthatrestorestidalwetlandsintheLafayettewatershed.ThePartnershiphasrestored29,000squarefeetofwetlandsandbuffersandinstalled1raingarden.Foronewetlandsrestorationproject,thegroupworkedwiththelocaljailsandusedtheprisonerroadcrewsforvolunteerlabor.AccordingtoamemberofthePartnership,manyprisonersleftwithasenseofprideintheirworkandsenseofenvironmentalstewardship.
TheLafayetteRiverRestorationcollaborationisauniquelyunifiedeffortthathasresultedinmanydifferentstakeholdersworkingtogetherandindividuallytoimprovewaterqualityinasubwatershedoftheElizabethRiver.Theparticipationandfeedbackfromvariousstakeholdersintherestorationplanimplementationprocessallowsfortheidentificationofsuccessfulstrategiesandopportunitiesforimprovement.However,stakeholdershavereportedsomedifficultieswithinter‐agencyandpartnershipcommunication,publicrelations,andthemaintenanceofBMPs.Forexample,theLafayetteWetlandsPartnershipsuccessfullycollaboratedwiththeNorfolkEnvironmentalDivisiononprojectplanningandpermittingwetlandsprojectsfundedandrestoredbythePartnership.However,ononecompletedprojected,anotherCitydepartmentlaterruinedtherestoredwetlandsduringroutineinfrastructuremaintenanceandupgrades.
ERPnotedthattheirorganizationneedstoremindprivatepropertyownersonaregularbasistocontinuewater‐friendlylawncareandraingardenmaintenance.ERPstaffalsovoicedaconcernthatraingardens,whilepopular,maynotbeappropriateinallurbansettings.TheZoohasnotedthatwhilethedesignandinstallationofbioremediationprojectslikeraingardensarepopularvolunteerdemonstrationprojectswithMasterGardenersandotherlocalgroups,raingardenmaintenanceprojectsarenotpopular.Afterrecognizingthatdemonstrationbioretentionprojectsonpublicpropertywerenotbeingmaintainedbycitycrews,ERPhiredaprivatelandscapingcompanytoprovideBMPmaintenance.Inaddition,theZoostaffhasexperiencedsomechallengeswiththefloatingwetlandsincludingattractinggeese,unattractiveappearanceofwetlandsinwintermonths,andrustingandfailureofhardwarethatcausedthewetlandtobreakintosmallerislands.Withanunderstandingthatthefloatingwetlandsareexperimental,staffisworkingtoidentifydesignmodificationsandothermanufacturedproductsthatmightcorrecttheproblems.
2.3.3 Lynnhaven River NOW and the City of Virginia Beach
AccordingtotheLynnhavenRiverNOW(LRN)website,agroupofconcernedandinfluentialcitizensformedtheorganizationin2003inorderto“fosterpartnershipsthatwouldapplypublicandprivateresourcestothechallengeofreducingpollutionintheLynnhaven…Thatcoregroupformedthenucleusofwhathasgrownintoanawardwinningriverrestorationprojectwithover3,000memberscalledLynnhavenRiverNOW.”TheLynnhavenRiverwatershedrestorationplanincludesthefollowingobjectives:
Identifyandreducesourcesofpollutantsincludingnutrients,sediments,bacteriaandotherchemicals;
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐21
Educateandengagethecommunityandpartnerorganizationsintheriverrestorationandprotection;and
Restorehabitatsincludingoysterreefs,saltmarshes,andotherbuffers.
LikeERP,LRNhasdedicatedin‐housestaffaswellasseveralcommitteesmadeupofcommunityleadersandtechnicalexperts.LRNhasthefollowingcommittees:CleanBoatingandCleanMarinas;Education;ExecutiveProgram;LandscapePractices;OysterRestoration;PRandMarketing;PublicPolicy;StewardshipandAccess;andWetland.Eachcommitteeidentifiescriticalissuesandpotentialsolutions,establishesguidelines,andrecommendsprogrammaticstrategiesandactions.
LRNhasinfluencedandhelpedtotransformCityofVirginiaBeachland‐useplanningandpolicyandenvironmentalplanning,policy,andenforcement.TheCityhastakenaproactiveapproachbyestablishinganEnvironmentandSustainabilityOffice,initiatingasustainabilityplanandforming:theVirginiaBeachGreenRibbonCommitteeandWaterQualityTaskForce.Bothgroups,managedbytheCity,bringtogetherinter‐agencyandNGOstakeholderstodevelopstrategiesfortheCity.TheCityislookingforwaystoexpandtheLRNmodeltoothersubwatershedsinVirginiaBeach.TheLRNmodelhasbeensoeffectivethattheCityhascontractedtheorganizationtoprovideoutreach,educationandengagementservicesfortheCity.
UsingaNFWFgrant,LynnhavenRiverNOWinitiallyworkedwiththeVirginiaBeachofficeoftheVirginiaCooperativeExtensiontodevelopandco‐sponsorwater‐friendlyworkshopsthateducatecitizensandlandscapeprofessionalsonwater‐friendlyactionstoreducestormwater,protectandrestorehabitat,andimprovewaterquality.LRNprovideson‐lineguidanceandresourcesfordo‐it‐yourselfersonwater‐friendlypracticesandmaintainsalistoflocallandscapeprofessionals,retailandwholesalesuppliers,andlawncarecompanieswhoprovidewater‐friendlyservicesandsupplies.In2009,LRN,theCityofVirginiaBeach,theVirginiaCooperativeExtension,andtheVirginiaChapteroftheAmericanAssociationofLandscapeArchitectsofferedatwo‐dayprofessionallandscapingworkshop;alinktotheworkshopagendaisprovidedinAppendixD.
Throughexperience,LRNfoundthattheVirginiaTechsoilanalysisrecommendedexcessivenutrientapplications.LRNcontractedwithaRichmond‐basedsoilanalysisfirmtoprovidememberswitha“lownutrient”analysisandrecommendations.TheorganizationhassincesharedthisinformationwithERP,whoisnowusingtheservicesofthesamefirm.
2.3.3.1 Funding and Incentives
LynnhavenRiverNOWanditsprogramsarefundedthroughacombinationofsources.Approximatelyone‐thirdofthefundingcomesfromprivateindividualdonationsandtheproceedsfromeventsliketheannualoysterroastand“PaddlefortheRiver;”anotherthirdcomesfromfoundationandgovernmentgrants,andanotherthirdcomesfromacontractwiththeCitygovernment.Theorganizationalsointendstosetupalong‐termendowment(BurkeandDunn(editors),2010).LRNhasbeentherecipientofgrantsfromNFWFandtheChesapeakeBayRestorationFund.
LRN’sincentiveprogramsincludethePearlSchoolprogram,thePearlHomesprogram,anannualphotographycontest,andanannualvolunteerappreciationpicnicandvolunteer‐of‐the‐yearaward.AccordingtoBurkeandDunn(2010),thePearlSchoolprogramwasestablishedto
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐22 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
recognize,encourage,andsupporttheeffortsofteachersandschoolsthataredevelopinganethicofenvironmentalresponsibilityandstewardshipamongstudents.BurkeandDunn(2010)alsonotethatLRNalsohasawetlandrestorationprojectcalledGrowingWetlandsintheClassroom,throughwhichplantsaregrownbystudentsandtransplantedtorestorationsites.
LRNrecentlylaunchedthePearlHomesprogramasawaytoengageandrecognizecitizensforwater‐friendlybehaviorandpractices(seeAppendixC).Atlastcount,376propertyownershaveenrolledtobecomePearlHomes.TheprogramissimilartotheERPRiverStarHomesandalsousescommunity‐basedsocialmarketingtechniquesusingthemethodologyofDr.McKenzie‐Mohr.Ifacceptedintotheprogram,propertyownersreceiveaPearlHomegardenflagtodisplayinthefrontyardandadvertiseparticipationtoneighbors.
2.3.3.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
LRNandtheCityofVirginiaBeacharecurrentlydevelopingaGIS‐basedonlineBMPtrackingandreportingsystem.Oncethissystemiscompleted,theCityandLRNwillbeabletotrackandreporttheBMPsinstalledonprivateproperty,andreportnutrientandsedimentloadreductionstoVirginiaandEPAforcredittowardtheCity’spollutionreductiongoalsundertheChesapeakeBayTMDL.
Everyyear,LRNdevelopsareportcardfortheriver.In2010,thefollowingwerereported:
Transplantof798,143oystersandconstructionof58totalacresofoysterhabitat;
Nonetlossofwetlands;
Increaseof6.08‐acresofsubmergedaquaticvegetation;
Preservationof2,996acresofopenspaceandopeningof4publicaccesssites;
Anodischargezoneineffectand4certified“CleanMarinas;”
Provisionof$3.9millionincreaseinfundingfromtheCityforwaterqualityimprovements;and
Engagementof4,758membersand14,664citizensbyLRNprograms.
InMarch2012,LRNreportedthatapproximately300privatepropertyownerscommittedtobecomingPearlHomesprogramparticipants.
AthoroughcasestudyofLRNisfeaturedbyTheConservationFundinSustainableChesapeake,BetterModelsforConservation(BurkeandDunn(editors),2010).AdditionalinformationisprovidedintheReferencesectionunderLynnhavenRiverNOW–CityofVirginiaBeach.
2.3.4 Reedy Creek Watershed Project – Richmond, VA
TheReedyCreekWatershedProjectisanotherpromisingNFWF‐fundedpilotprogramtoincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandthenumberofon‐siteLIDretrofitsonprivateproperty.Theprojectisacollaborativeeffortbetweenalocalwatershedgroup,theReedyCreekCoalition,andtheAlliancefortheChesapeakeBay(ACB).
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐23
2.3.4.1 Funding and Incentives
PartnersandadditionalfundingsourcesincludetheReedyCreekCoalition,VirginiaCommonwealthUniversity(L.DouglasWilderSchoolofGovernmentandPublicAffairs),CityofRichmond(Dept.ofPublicUtilities),RichmondCityCouncilmanDougConnor,FriendsofForestHillPark,theVirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality(DEQ),PatrickHenrySchoolofScienceandArts,CleanVirginiaWaterways,andtheAltriaGroup,Inc.Thebudgetforthis3‐yeareffortisapproximately$830,000.
AccordingtotheNFWFgrant,theprojectwill:
[D]evelopandimplementasocialengagementandurbanconservationprogramtoaddressstormwaterpollutionintheReedyCreekwatershed.Projectwillconductcommunityeducationinitiatives,performresidentialandcommercialstormwateraudits,andestablishacost‐shareprogramforurbanconservationpractices…Throughthecourseofthisprogram,weplantoconduct150audits(residentialandbusinesses),train40volunteerauditors,andinstall150BMPsofvarioussizesanddesignsand…Ourmeasurementofprogramsuccesswillcomefromavolunteerwatermonitoringprogramwehaverecentlylaunched.WatersamplesarecollectedthroughoutthewatershedandRichmondDPUanalyzestheseattheCity’sWWTPlaboratory...Weanticipatereducing154.5lbs.N,16lbs.P,and27tonsofsedimentannually.
2.3.4.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
Althoughalltheauditshavebeencompletedfortheproject,BMPinstallationdidnotstartuntillate2011,sotheresultsofthisprojectwerenotavailableatthetimeofpublication.SomeoftheBMPsaresuitableforastormwaterutilitycreditfromtheCityofRichmond.AccordingtoChrisFrench,ACB’sformerVirginiaDirector,oncetheBMPsareinstalledandcitizensapplyforacredit,theprogramwillbeabletoevaluatetheeffectivenessoftheRichmondstormwaterutilitycreditincentiveandtheCitywillhaveamechanismfortrackingtheBMPsinstalledthroughthecreditprogram(personalcommunication,2011).
2.3.5 Friends of the Rappahannock
FriendsoftheRappahannockisanotherwell‐organized,long‐livedwatershedorganization,similartotheElizabethRiverProjectandLynnhavenRiverNOW,thathasbeeninstrumentalintestinginnovativeenvironmentalstewardshipdevelopmenttechniquesandpromotingwatershed‐friendlyBMPsonprivateproperty.TheCityofFredericksburg,StaffordCounty,andSpotsylvaniaCountyarelocatedintheRappahannockRiverwatershedandwereearlyadoptersandpromotersofLIDstormwatermanagementpractices.FriendsoftheRappahannockmembershavebeenkeyadvocatessupportingCityandCountyefforts.FriendsoftheRappahannockisapartneroftheRiverFriendlyYardsprogramintheCityofFredericksburg(seesection2.2.6foradescriptionoftheRiverFriendlyYardsprogram).
2.3.5.1 Funding and Incentives
AccordingtoNFWFfiles,in2009,FriendsoftheRappahannockreceiveda$108,956NFWFgrantto“replicateinnovativemodelsfornutrientcontrolintworapidlysuburbanizingmunicipalitiesintheRappahannockRiverBasin.The[p]rojectwillimplementbestpracticesforstormwater
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐24 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
managementandchangelandownerbehaviorviaa“buildingblock”methodforchangingdevelopmentcodesandasocialmarketingprogramthatquantifiesnutrientreductions.”
FriendsoftheRappahannock(likeArlingtonCounty)usetheLivableNeighborhoodWaterStewardsProgramtopromoteandincreasewater‐friendlyactionsonprivatepropertyneighborhoodbyneighborhood.TheVirginiaDEQ’sOfficeofEnvironmentalEducationtrainedFriendsoftheRappahannockaswellasanotherNGO,theThreeRiversEnvironmentalEducators.
2.3.5.2 Tracking and Effectiveness
StaffordCountyDepartmentofCodeAdministrationhasaStormwaterBMPMasterDatabase/GISthatcouldbeusedbyotherlocalitiesasamodelfortrackingBMPretrofitsonline.
WetlandsWatchdidnotconductadetailedinvestigationintotheeffectivenessofthepartnershipactivitiesbetweenFriendsoftheRappahannockandSpotsylvaniaandStaffordCounties;however,aconversationwithKevinByrnesoftheGeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionindicatesthatSpotsylvaniaCountyandStaffordCountyhavewell‐coordinatedMS4programsasaresultofpromotinglowimpactdesignstormwatermanagementandtheircollaborationwithFriendsoftheRappahannock.Additionaldetailsareavailableattheirwebsite;thelinktothewebsiteisprovidedinsection2.7andintheReferencesectionunderFriendsoftheRappahannockRiver.
2.4 Soil and Water Conservation Districts
SoilandWaterConservationDistrictsprovideanothermeanstoorganizeandfundprogramstoincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandBMPsonprivateproperty.SWCDsaresemi‐independentregionaloversightagencieswiththeprimarymissionofprotectingandconservingsoilandwaterresources.SWCDsprovidetechnicalservices,conservationinformation,andeducationalopportunities(seesection2.7forweblinkstoprogramresources).EachSWCDfunctionslikeanindependentcontractorwithprogramsandin‐houseexpertiseadaptedtotheneedsoflocalcitizens.AlthoughaportionofSWCDfundingcomesfromthestate,themajorityofaSWCDbudgetcomesfromlocalitiesandothersources.
TheprimaryroleofSWCDsinruralareashasbeentodevelopandmanagetheVirginiaAgriculturalBestManagementPracticesCost‐ShareProgramandtopromoteinstallationofagriculturalBMPs.SomeSWCDs,liketheColonialSWCD,arerespondingtothetransitionfromruraltourbanlandusewithintheirdistrictsandhavedevelopedprogramsthatapplytheirexperienceswithagriculturalBMPprogramstothepromotionofurbanstormwaterretrofits(seesection2.2.4,JamesCityCounty“CommunityConservationPartnership”program).TheNorthernVirginiaSWCD,whoseentirejurisdictionisFairfaxCounty,VA,hasdevelopedexpertiseinurbanstormwaterretrofitsandstreamrestorationaswellasoutreach,education,andinvolvementofurbanstakeholders.BasedonaconversationwithLauraGrapeoftheNorthernVirginiaRegionalCommission,FairfaxCountydeterminedthattheycouldnotuseCountyfundstoinstallraingardensonprivatepropertybecausethiswouldresultinincreasedpropertyvalues.Toavoidtheinequitableuseoftaxrevenue,theCountyhadtheNorthernVirginiaSWCDdelivertheprogram.
AnotherpromisingNFWFgrant‐fundedSWCDpilotproject,whichisstillintheearlystagesofimplementation,involvescollaborationbetween3SWCDs,15localitiesandthelocalMaster
Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐25
Gardeners.Thepilotprojectwilltestthefeasibilityofusingawell‐establishedNorthCarolinaSWCDprogram,NorthCarolinaCommunityConservationAssistanceProgram(NCCCAP).AccordingtotheNFWFgrantproposal,theCulpeper,Hanover‐Caroline,andThomasJeffersonSWCDswillpartnerandcollaboratewithMasterGardeners,localgovernment,VirginiaDepartmentofForestry(VDOF),ChesapeakeNetworkforEducationofMunicipalOfficials(NEMO),andRivannaRegionalStormwaterEducationPartnership.Thebudgetforthisone‐yearprojectisapproximately$50,000.TheprojectwilladaptandtesttheNCCCAPprogramtoincludeVirginia‐approvedBMPs,estimateefficienciesandnutrientloadreductionsforapprovedBMPs,identifynecessaryadjustments,andprepareapilotmanual.SWCDstaffwillattendthesameprofessionalcertificationcoursesrequiredbyNCCCAPandbecertifiedtoreviewdesignsandinspectBMPs.NCCCAPhasanon‐linedatabasetrackingandreportingsystemusedforbothagriculturalBMPsinthecost‐shareprogramandurbanBMPsinstalledthroughtheNCCCAPprogram.
2.5 Plant Eastern Shore Natives Campaign
ThePlantEasternShoreNativesCampaign(PlantESNatives)isaprogramdevelopedbytheVirginiaDEQCoastalZoneManagement(CZM)PrograminpartnershipwithlocalitiesontheEasternShoreofVirginiatopromotetheuseofnativeplantsonprivateproperties(seesection2.7forweblinkstoprogramresources).CZMpartneredwithcommunitymemberstodesigntheprogram,identifybarrierstosuccess,developattractivereferencematerials,developanimplementationstrategythatusedcommunitybasedsocialmarketingtechniques,identifydemonstrationsites,andrecruitlocalgardencentersandnurseriestosupply,marketandsellnativeplants.LiketheAnneArundelCountyWSA,thePlantESNativescampaignisrecruitingandtrainingcommunityleaderstobenativeplantstewards.Inaddition,thisprogramhascreatedasupplyanddemandfornativeplantsandisnowbeingpilotedintheNorthernVirginiaareabytheNorthernVirginiaRegionalCommissionwithaCZMgrant.Withinthecoastalplain,nativeplantsarethepreferredplantmaterialformanylandscaping‐typeBMPsonprivateproperty(likeraingardensandriparianbuffers);however,nativeplantsareoftennotmarkedasnativesormarketedbylocalnurseriesandgardencenters.
CZMalsostartedaNativePlantsMarketingGroupthathasbroughttogetherseveralstateagenciesandNGOstocoordinateeffortstoincreasetheuseofnativeplantsingeneralandincludenativeplantingsasaBMPtoachievenutrientandsedimentreductioncredittowardmeetinggoalsfortheChesapeakeBayTMDL.
2.6 Environmental Stewardship and Professional Training Programs
2.6.1 Environmental Stewards Programs
InVirginia,thereareanumberofprogramsthattrainandcoordinatecitizenleaderstobeenvironmentalstewardswithintheircommunity.Theseleadersaretechnicallytrainedtoprovideapredictablelevelofvolunteerenvironmentalandlandscape‐relatedservicestotheircommunity.Oftentheseprogramsreceivesupportfromregional,state‐andfederal‐runstewardshipoutreachandeducationprograms:
BackyardandCorporateHabitats–DepartmentofGameandInlandFisheries(DGIF)
UrbanForestryandRainGardens–VirginiaDepartmentofForestry(DOF)
VirginiaNaturally–DEQDepartmentofEnvironmentalEducation(DEE)
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
2‐26 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Bayscapes–AlliancefortheChesapeakeBayandUSFishandWildlifeService
WaterWise/BeWaterSmart,askHRGreen.org‐HRPDC
Bayscapingandoystergardening–CBFandLRN
StormwaterManagement/NutrientManagement–DCR
GoNative–CZM
TheVirginiaHorticulturalSociety
Environmentalstewardsfromseveraltrainingprogramshaveprovidedwatershed‐relatedvolunteerservicesincludingMasterGardenersandMasterNaturalists,LivableNeighborhoodWaterStewardshipProgram,CBFVoiCeSandOysterGardeners,theCBF/WetlandsWatchLand‐UseTrainingProgram,VirginiaSaveOurStreamsProgram,andtheDCRNutrientManagementCertificationProgram.Thetypesofprogram‐providedtrainingaresummarizedinTable2‐1.Althoughtheservicesandtheleveloftrainingmayvaryfromoneprogramtothenext,allprogramsdevelopanetworkofmotivatedenvironmentaladvocateswhoaretrainedtoeducateandengagemembersoftheircommunityusingsocialmarketingtechniques.
Throughconversationsandsurveyresults,WetlandsWatchnotedthatmanyofthesetrainedstewardsarecross‐trainedindifferentprograms.Forinstance,manyAdvancedMasterGardenersalsoareMasterNaturalistsand/orVoiCeSgraduates.Typically,VirginiaCooperativeExtensionagentscoordinatetheMasterGardenersandMasterNaturalistsprogramsinalocalityandtheadvancedtrainingofferedisareflectionoftheneedsidentifiedbythelocalagent.
VirginiaTechrunsanAdvancedMasterWaterStewardstrainingprograminBlacksburg,VirginiawithacurriculumsimilartotheAnneArundelCountyandNationalCapitalRegionWSAs.However,localchaptersorganizetheirowntrainingcoursesandthecurriculumandexpertiseofinstructorsvariesfromonelocalitytothenext.
NooneprograminVirginiaprovidesthelevelofserviceandpredictableleveloftechnicalexpertisecomparabletotheAnneArundelCountyWSA.Trainedenvironmentalstewards,whilealreadyactiveandprovidingvaluableserviceswithintheHamptonRoadsarea,havethepotentialtobemorevaluablepartnersintheefforttoincreaseBMPsonprivateproperties.Aclearlyidentifiedmanagementstructure,amorepredictablelevelofserviceandtechnicalexpertise,atechnicalconsortium,alocalandregionalresourceguide,andcentralized,consistenttrackingandreportingsystemwouldmakethesestewardsmorevaluablepartners.
TheVirginiaMembersoftheCBPMasterWaterStewardsActionTeamhaveproposedaRegionalWatershedStewardshipAcademySummittobringstakeholderstogethertoassessexistingstewardshipprograms,identifyopportunitiesforprogramrefinementandimprovements,identifylocalityspecificservicesandlevelofserviceneeds,andformulateastrongercollaborativenetworktosupportlocaleffortstoincreasestewardshipandBMPsonprivateproperty.
Section 2 ‐ Existing M
odel Programs
Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives | 2‐27
Table2‐1:
ExistingEnvironmentalStewardshipProgram
sinVirginia
Stewardship
Program
s Train‐the‐
Trainer**
Citizen
Scientists
Site
Assessm
ents
Solutions
Plan
BMP
Design,
Installation,
BMP
maintenan
ce
Environmental
Advocates
Fund‐
raising
Tracking
and
Reporting
MasterGardenersGardening,
Water
Stew
ards,
Tree
Stew
ards
Sometimes,
dependson
local
chapter
interests,
demonstrat
ionprojects
Just
beginnin
gto
report
andtrack
activities
online
Master
Naturalists
Environm
ental
subjects
CBFVoiCeS
Chesapeake
Bayand
Land‐Use
Organize
and
oversee,
dependson
individual
stew
ard
CBFOyster
Gardeners
?
CBF/Wetlands
WatchLand‐Use
Advocacy
Livable
Neighborhoods
WaterStewards
Section 2 – Existing M
odel Programs
2‐28 | Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives
Table2‐1:
ExistingEnvironmentalStewardshipProgram
sinVirginia(continued)
Stewardship
Program
s Train‐the‐
Trainer**
Citizen
Scientists
Site
Assessm
ents
Solutions
Plan
BMP
Design,
Installation,
BMP
maintenan
ce
Environmental
Advocates
Fund‐
raising
Tracking
and
Reporting
VirginiaSaveOur
Stream
sProgram
Water
Quality
Monitoring
DCRNutrient
Managem
ent
Certification
ReedyCreek
Coalition
NativePlant
Society
Native
Planttalks,
walks,
demos
**Train‐the‐Trainerprogram
sfocusonstakeholderoutreach,education,andinvolvem
ent.
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐29
2.6.2 Training for Landscape Professionals
LandscapeprofessionalscanbevaluablepartnersineffortstoincreaseBMPsonprivatepropertybecausemanyoftheappropriateBMPsarelandscapingpractices.Similarly,lawncarecompaniescanpromotewater‐friendlylawncarepracticesand,ifproperlytrainedandincentivized,minimallevelsoffertilizersandnutrients.
Landscapearchitects/designersandlandscapingcompanies,whooftenaretrustedadvisorstoprivatepropertyowners,havetheabilitytoincorporateandpromotestormwatermanagementandhabitatrestorationwithinalandscapedesign.Inaddition,manyoftheBMPsneedregularmaintenanceandlandscapecontractorinvolvementiscriticalforpropermaintenance.SeveralstakeholdersinterviewedforthisreportnotedthatlandscapemaintenancecrewsoftenmowBMPsbecausetheymistakenativeplantbuffersandwetlandplantsforweeds.
Anumberoftrainingand/orcertificationopportunitiesforlandscapeprofessionalsareavailableintheChesapeakeBayregionthroughenvironmentalstewardshipprograms.However,manyofthetrainingworkshopsareeithernotavailablewithintheHamptonRoadsregionorarenotprovidedonaregularbasisbecauseoflackoffunding.
LynnhavenRiverNOW,theVirginiaBeachVCE,theCityofVirginiaBeach,andthelocalchapteroftheAmericanSocietyofLandscapeArchitectsranaseriesofworkshopsinVirginiaBeachandwouldliketohostthesepopularworkshopsagain,butdonothavethefunding(AppendixD).LandscapeprofessionalswhoattendedtheseVirginiaBeachworkshopsarelistedontheLynnhavenRiverNOWwebsite.TheVIMSChesapeakeBayNationalEstuarineResearchReserve(CBNERR)programisplanningaseriesofworkshopstotrainlandscapeprofessionals.Withinthelastfewyears,theAmericanSocietyofLandscapeArchitects(ASLA)hasdevelopedasustainablelandscapeprogramcalledSITES.LocalVCEofficesandgardencentershavehostedclassesonsustainablelandscapingpractices.TheChesapeakeConservationLandscapingCouncilpromotestheuseofeightconservationlandscapingpracticesandisdevelopingacertificationprogramforlandscapeprofessionalsintheChesapeakeBayregion;landscapeprofessionalswhoagreetoapplythese8practicesarepromotedonthePlantMorePlants(aDCRcampaign)website.
Landscapeprofessionalsinterviewedhavenotedanincreaseinthenumberofcustomersaskingforconservationtypelandscaping,raingardens,andpermeablepavers.JCCEngineeringandNaturalResourcesandtheCityofVirginiaBeachSustainabilitystaffhavenoticedanincreaseinthenumberofprofessionallydesigned,environmentallysensitivelandscapeplanssubmittedasproposedcompensationforRPA,beachdune,andwetlandsdisturbances.
WhiletherearealreadyexampleswheretheprivatesectorisavaluablepartnerineffortstoincreasethenumberofBMPsonprivateproperty,HamptonRoadsasaregionwouldbenefitfrommorelandscapeprofessionalswithstormwaterBMPtraining.TheproposedWSAStrategicSummitagendaincludesareviewofexistingprogramsandadeliverymechanismforcertificationandtrainingoflandscapeprofessionals.
Section 4 – Issues That Impact Feasibility
2‐30 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
2.7 Resources
Belowarelinkstoinformationresourcesfortheprogramsdescribedinthissection.
City‐orCounty‐WidePrograms
AnneArundelCounty,MD: AnneArundelCountyDepartmentofPublicWorks:
www.aacounty.org/DPW/index.cfm Rainscaping:www.rainscaping.org Stormwatermanagementtaxcreditform:
www.aacounty.org/Finance/Resources/StormWaterMgmtTaxCredit.pdf WatershedStewardAcademy:www.aawsa.org WatershedEcosystemandRestorationServices(WERS)DivisionWatershed
MappingApplication:gis‐world.aacounty.org/wersWashington,DC
AnacostiaWatershedSociety: www.anacostiaws.org DistrictDepartmentoftheEnvironment:ddoe.dc.gov DistrictGreenRoofRebateProgram:
www.anacostiaws.org/programs/stewardship/green‐roofs GreenUpDC:greenup.dc.gov NationalCapitalRegionWatershedStewardAcademy:ncr‐wsa.org RiverSmartHomes:ddoe.dc.gov/riversmarthomes RiverSmartCommunities:ddoe.dc.gov/service/riversmart‐communities RiverSmartWashington:www.rockcreekconservancy.org/index.php/about‐the‐
program‐riversmart RockCreekConservancy:www.rockcreekconservancy.org/
MontgomeryCounty,VA
MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP):www.montgomerycountymd.gov/deatmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/dephome/index.asp
MontgomeryCountyDEPRainScapesProgram:www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dectmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/water/rainscapes.asp
MontgomeryCountyDEPWaterQualityProtectionCharge(WQPC):www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dectmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/water/wqpc.asp
NationalCapitalRegionWatershedStewardAcademy:www.ncr‐wsa.orgJamesCityCounty,VA
FriendsofPowhatanCreek:fopc.wm.edu/FOPC.html JamesCityCounty,BeWaterSmartProgram:
www.jamescitycountyva.gov/bewatersmart/ JamesCityCountyGeneralServicesDepartment,StormwaterDivision:
www.jccegov.com/stormwater/index.html JamesCityCounty,ProtectingResourcesInDelicateEnvironments(PRIDE):
www.jamescitycountyva.gov/jccpride/
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐31
JamesCityCounty,ShapingOurShoresMasterPlan:www.jccegov.com/sos JamesCity/WilliamsburgMasterGardeners,TurfLove/GardenLoveProgram:
jccwmg.org/turflove.htm JamesRiverAssociation:www.jrava.org VirginiaCooperativeExtension,TurfLoveProgram:offices.ext.vt.edu/james‐
city/programs/anr/Turf_Love.html WilliamsburgLandConservancy:www.williamsburglandconservancy.org/
ArlingtonCounty,VA
ArlingtonCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalServices:www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/EnvironmentalServices/EnvironmentalServicesMain.aspx
ArlingtonCountyStormwaterWiseLandscapesProgram:www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/sustainability/page83039.aspx
ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment:www.arlingtonenvironment.org/ EmpowermentInstitute,LivableNeighborhoodWaterStewards/Water
StewardshipProgram:empowermentinstitute.net/files/WSP.htmlCityofFredericksburg,VA
CityofFredericksburg,RiverFriendlyYardsProgram:www.riverfriendlyyard.com
RappahannockRiverBasinCommission:www.rappriverbasin.org/
Non‐ProfitModelPrograms
TheNatureConservancy,Virginia:www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/virginia/index.htm
CenterforWatershedProtection:www.cwp.org ChesapeakeBayFoundation:www.cbf.org AlliancefortheChesapeakeBay:www.allianceforthebay.org JamesRiverAssociation:www.jrava.org ElizabethRiverProject:www.elizabethriver.org
- MoneyPoint,Chesapeake:www.elizabethriver.org/Projects/Money_Point.aspx
- ParadiseCreek/ParadiseCreekNaturePark,Portsmouth:www.elizabethriver.org/Projects/Paradise_Creek.aspx
- LafayetteRiverRestoration,Norfolk:www.elizabethriver.org/Projects/Lafayette%20River%20Restoration.aspx
- RiverStarBusinessesProgram:www.elizabethriver.org/RiverStars/RiverStarsIndustires.aspx
- RiverStarHomesProgram:www.elizabethriver.org/RiverStars/default.aspx- RiverStarSchoolsProgram:
www.elizabethriver.org/RiverStars/RiverStarsSchool.aspx TheLivingRiverRestorationTrust:www.livingrivertrust.org LynnhavenRiverNOW:www.lynnhavenrivernow.org
- PearlSchools:www.lynnhavenrivernow.org/pearl‐school.aspx- OysterGardening:www.lynnhavenrivernow.org/lynnhaven‐oysters.aspx
Section 4 – Issues That Impact Feasibility
2‐32 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
KeepNorfolkBeautiful:www.norfolkbeautiful.org LafayetteWetlandsPartnership:www.lrwpartners.org VirginiaBeachCleanWatersTaskForce:
www.vbgov.com/government/offices/eso/boards‐commissions/pages/clean‐waters‐task.aspx
VirginiaBeachGreenRibbonCommitteeImplementationReport: www.ourfuturevb.com/compplandocs/Documents/greenribbonreport070808.pdf
ReedyCreekCoalition:www.reedycreekcoalition.org FriendsoftheRappahannock:www.riverfriends.org
SoilandWaterConservationDistricts
VirginiaAssociationofSoilandWaterConservationDistricts:vaswcd.org/- ColonialSWCD:www.colonialswcd.net- NorthernVirginiaSWCD:www.fairfaxcounty.gov/nvswcd- PeanutSWCD:(ph)757‐357‐7004- VirginiaDareSWCD:
www.vbgov.com/government/departments/agriculture/programs‐and‐services/pages/va‐dare‐soil‐and‐water‐conservation‐district.aspx
- ChowanBasinSWCD:www.chowanbasinswcd.org NorthCarolinaCommunityConservationAssistanceProgram:
www.enr.state.nc.us/dswc/pages/ccap_program.html
PlantEasternShoreNativesCampaign
PlantEasternShoreNativesCampaign:www.deq.state.va.us/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/CZMIssuesInitiatives/NativePlants.aspx
VirginiaDEQCoastalZoneManagement:www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement.aspx
NorthernVirginiaRegionalCommission:www.novaregion.org
EnvironmentalStewardshipandProfessionalTrainingPrograms
EnvironmentalStewardshipPrograms BackyardandCorporateHabitats–DepartmentofGameandInlandFisheries:
www.dgif.virginia.gov/habitat/ UrbanForestryandRainGardens–VirginiaDepartmentofForestry:
www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/rfb/rain‐gardens.htm VirginiaNaturally–DEQDepartmentofEnvironmentalEducation:
www.deq.state.va.us/ConnectWithDEQ/EnvironmentalInformation/VirginiaNaturally.aspx
Bayscapes–AlliancefortheChesapeakeBayandUSFishandWildlifeService:www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/bayscapes.htm
askHRGreen.org–HRPDC:askhrgreen.org/ Bayscaping‐CBF:www.cbf.org/page.aspx?pid=525 Oystergardening–LRN:www.lynnhavenrivernow.org/need‐oyster‐
growers.aspx VoiCes–CBF:www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=545
Section 2 – Existing Model Programs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 2‐33
StormwaterManagement/NutrientManagement–DCR:www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/nutmgt.shtml
GoNative–CZM:www.deq.state.va.us/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/CZMIssuesInitiatives/NativePlants.aspx
TheVirginiaHorticulturalFoundation:www.vahort.org/about.shtml VirginiaNativePlantSociety:www.vnps.org VirginiaSaveOurStreamsProgram:www.vasos.org VirginiaMasterNaturalist:www.virginiamasternaturalist.org VirginiaMasterGardenersAssociation:www.vmga.net
TrainingforLandscapeProfessionals:
Watershed‐FriendlyLandscapeWorkshopPresentations‐LynnhavenRiverNOW;VirginiaBeachVCE;CityofVirginiaBeach;AmericanSocietyofLandscapeArchitects):www.vbgov.com/government/offices/eso/watershed‐workshop/pages/default.aspx- Landscapeprofessionalswhoattendedworkshopsabove:
http://www.lynnhavenrivernow.org/pages/207/default.aspx VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience,ChesapeakeBayNationalEstuarineResearch
Reserve:www.vims.edu/cbnerr/ AmericanSocietyofLandscapeArchitects,SustainableSitesInitiative:
www.asla.org/sites.aspx ChesapeakeConservationLandscapingCouncil:www.chesapeakelandscape.org DCRPlantMorePlantsCampaign:www.plantmoreplants.com/resources.shtml
Section 4 – Issues That Impact Feasibility
2‐34 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐1
3 Appropriate BMPs
3.1 Introduction
OneoftheobjectivesofthisstudywastoidentifyBMPsappropriateforprivateproperties,distinguishbetweenthoseappropriatefordifferentlandusesandscales,andestimatethenutrientremovalpotentialforeachBMPtype.WetlandsWatchreliedheavilyonworkbytheCenterforWatershedProtectionandTomSchueler,DirectoroftheChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork(CSN)andCBPStormwaterCoordinator.CWPpreparedaseriesofsubwatershedrestorationguidancedocumentsandtoolscalledtheUrbanSubwatershedRestorationManuals(seeReferencessectionforlinks).InManual3,UrbanStormwaterRetrofitPractices(Schueleretal.,2007),CWPprovidesextensiveanalysis,guidance,andsummariesofallthefactorstoconsiderduringtheselection,design,installation,maintenance,inspection,andmonitoringofstormwaterretrofitBMPs.AdditionalsummarytablesandfiguresfromManual3areincludedinAppendixEofthisreport.
TomSchuelerhaspreparedandparticipatedintheMS4PhaseIIStormwaterManagerTrainingwebcasts(linksprovidedintheReferencesection)andhasauthoredtwokeytechnicalbulletins(CSNTechnicalBulletinNos.2and9)that:
IdentifyappropriateBMPsforprivateproperty;
IdentifyissuesassociatedwithBMPdesign,installation,maintenance,inspection,andmonitoring;
IdentifyfactorsthatinfluenceandlimitthesuccessfuluseoftheseBMPs;and
ProvideWIPstrategiesandmethodologyforestimatingnutrientreductionratesforstormwaterretrofits.
BothSchuelerandCWPprovidedtechnicalexpertiseandco‐authoredtheguidancefortheRunoffReductionMethodadoptedbytheVirginiaStormwaterManagementProgram.ManyoftheBMPstandardsandspecificationsdocuments(availableontheVirginiaBMPClearinghousewebsite)weredevelopedbyCSNandCWP.
Thissectionincorporatesreviewofthefollowingresources:documentationfortheVirginiaAssessmentScenarioTool(VAST),ScenarioBuilder,andtheEPA’ssuiteofmodelsfortheChesapeakeBay;theVAStormwaterManagementwebsite;andtheBMPClearinghouse.LinkstothesereferencesareprovidedintheReferencesectionofthisreportunderGeneralReferences.Stakeholderswereinterviewedthroughasurvey,in‐personorphoneinterviews,throughemailcorrespondence,and/orduringtheHRPDCWatershedRoundtableWorkshoponJanuary25,2011attheVirginiaZooinNorfolk.AlistofstakeholdersinterviewedandmeetingsattendedisprovidedinAppendixA.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Figure 3‐1: Chesapeake Bay Model Relationships from Section5ofthe Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment (US EPA, December 2010)
The Chesapeake Bay Model(s)
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model 5.3.2 is actually one of a suite of interactive models used to establish the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and model the effects of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment on the Chesapeake Bay. The BMPs that are modeled within the Watershed Model are Land-use related BMPs and the tidal waters and tidal shoreline of the Bay constitute the edge of the model domain. Model outputs include non-point source loads derived from land-use type and existing reported practices, and point source loads derived from Wastewater Discharge Loads obtained from reports provided by states and/or localities. According to the Watershed Model documentation, BMPs like vegetative non-structural tidal shoreline erosion control (which include tidal wetlands), structural erosion control, living shorelines, and headland controls are simulated as a load reduction along the shoreline. In addition, shoreline erosion and tidal wetlands are modeled as Bank Loads and Wetland Loads, respectively, in the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model (WQSTM). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) and Oyster Reefs are included in the WQSTM; however, Wetlands Watch did not explore how these BMPs are accounted for in the model. See Figure 3-1.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐3
“BMP”isabroadtermthatdescribesavarietyofpracticesandmeasuresthatcanbeappliedasstrategiestomeetlocalwatershedmanagementgoals.BMPscanincludeanyofthefollowing(Schueler,2005):
Stormwaterretrofits:storageretrofits,on‐sitenon‐residentialretrofits,andon‐siteresidentialretrofits.
Streamrestoration:streamcleanups,streamrepair,comprehensiverestorationpractices.
Riparianmanagement:reforestation,park,greenway,orriparianbufferplanting,riparianwetlandrestoration,andnaturalregenerationofvegetation.
Dischargeprevention:identify,fix,and/orpreventillicitsewageconnections,commercialandindustrialillicitconnections,failingsewagelines,andindustrialandtransportspills.
Perviousarearestoration:landreclamation,uplandre‐vegetation/reforestation,andmanagementofnaturalarearemnants.
Pollutionsourcecontrol:residentialsourcecontrolandhotspotsourcecontrol.
Municipalpracticesandprograms:streetsweepingandstormdrainpractices,greenstreets,bestpracticesfordevelopment/redevelopment,stewardshipofpublicland,municipalstewardshipprograms,watershededucationandenforcement.
ForMS4permitholders,publiceducationandpublicinvolvementactivitiesarealsoconsideredBMPs(seeEPANationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)website,http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/).
Thisinvestigationfocusesondevelopingadiscretelistof“appropriate”BMPsforHamptonRoadslocalitiestopromoteinordertofacilitateimplementationofBMPsonexistingprivateproperty.The“appropriateness”andfeasibilityofBMPsforuseinurbansettingsinthecoastalplainisdependentuponthefollowingfactors:
WhethertheBMPisanEPAapprovedpracticethatcanbereportedasalandusechange,anutrientandsedimentreductionefficiencyrate(urbanstormwaterBMPs),aloadreduction,orasystemchange(Table3‐1).
WhetherVirginia’sBMPstandardsandspecificationsindicatetheBMPisa“Preferred”or“Acceptable”practiceintheCoastalPlainoriftherearerecommendedregionaldesignadaptationsforuseintheCoastalPlain(Table3‐2).
Locality‐specificordinances,policies,enforcement,technicalexpertise,culture,internalandexternallocalgovernmentrelationshipswithandattitudestowardsstakeholders.
Location‐specificwatershedmanagementandrestorationpriorities,areasandpollutantsofconcern,andprogramimplementationstrategies.
Availabilityoffundingandpersonnelaswellasthetechnicalexpertiseofstakeholders.
Thedegreeofurbanizationofthewatershed(amountofimpervioussurfacecover).
Uniquesite‐specificcharacteristicslikelocationwithinthewatershedandthecoastalplain,existinghydrologicconditions(drainage,soils,depthtowatertable),propertysizeandimpervioussurfaces,physicalconstraints(likepropertysize,locationofbuildings,utilities,andpaving).
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Property(andadjacentproperty)ownerattitudesincludingnegativeandpositiveperceptionsaboutBMPs,personallandscapingtastesandpriorities,willingnessandabilitytocommittime,energy,and/orresources,andwillingnesstocooperatewithlocalities’needtoinspect,monitor,andtracktheBMPs.
BMPscurrentlyapprovedforandincludedintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2representalandusechange,loadreduction,asystemchange,orurbanstormwaterpracticeswithapprovednutrientandsedimentreductionefficiencyrates.ThegenerallandusecategoriesareAgriculture(includingNurseries),Forest(whichincludesforestedandemergentnon‐tidalwetlands),DevelopedLands(includingLowandHighIntensityPerviousandImperviousMS4permittedandNon‐regulated,ExtractiveActiveandAbandonedMines,andBare‐Construction),andOpenWaters(Non‐Tidal).UrbanBMPsapprovedforuseintheEPAWatershedModel5.3.2arelistedinTable3‐1.
TheVirginiaStormwaterManagementBMPsarenon‐proprietaryBMPsapprovedforusetocomplywiththenewVirginiaStormwaterRegulations.Thesenewstormwaterregulationsarebasedontherunoffreductionmethod,whichfocusesonusingacombinationoftheImperviousUrbanSurfaceReductionpractices(describedinSection3.2.1)toreduce“thepost‐developmentstormwaterrunoffvolumefromasite,aswellasmeetingmorestringentnutrientloadreductionrequirements.”Virginia‐approvedBMPsarepresentedinFigure3‐2.
MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE)preparedaChesapeakeBayTMDL/NPDESguidancedocument,AccountingforStormwaterWasteloadAllocationsandImperviousAcresTreated(MDE2011),thathasathoroughdiscussionofstructuralandalternativeBMPcreditsandtherecommendedefficienciesassociatedwitheachBMP(seeFigure3‐3).TheUniversityofMarylandCenterforEnvironmentalSciencedevelopedcostestimatesforapprovedBMPsbasedonimpervioussurfacereduction(seeFigure3‐4)andprovidesmultipliersforeachcountyinMaryland,linkstocostestimatespreadsheets,andguidanceonlinkagetotheMarylandAssessementScenarioTool(MAST)(KingandHagan,2011).
TheChesapeakeBayProgramrecognizesthatBMPscreditedinthemodelneedtobeperiodicallyreviewedandupdated.TheCBPWaterQualityGoalImplementationTeam(WQGIT)istaskedwithapprovingtheloadingratesusedintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel(CBWM).Existingloadingandeffectivenessratesareevaluatedonathreeyearschedule.TheprocessforevaluatingwhethernewpracticesshouldbeaddedtothemodelisdefinedintheWQGITdocument,“ProtocolfortheDevelopment,Review,andApprovalofLoadingandEffectivenessEstimatesforNutrientandSedimentControlsintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel”(seeAppendixF).Thereviewprocessentailsarequestfromaqualifyinggroup,determinationoftheneedforreview,reviewbyapanelofexperts,andapprovalbytheWQGIT.Throughthisprocess,itispossiblethatBMPsnotmentionedinthisreportcouldbeaddedtotheModelorthatefficiencieslistedinthisreportmaychangeinthefuture.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐5
Table3‐1: BMPsApprovedforUseintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2
PracticesTotal
NitrogenTotal
PhosphorusTotal
Sediment EfficiencyRates%LANDUSECHANGEBMPs
UrbanForestConservation
UrbanGrowthReduction
ImperviousUrbanSurfaceReduction
UrbanTreePlanting
UrbanForestBuffers 25 50 50
SYSTEMSCHANGE
SepticConnections
URBANSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTBMPs
DryDetentionandExtendedDetentionBasins 5 10 10
DryDetentionandHydrodynamicStructures 20 20 60
UrbanFilteringPractices(sandfilters) 40 60 80
UrbanInfiltrationPracticeswithSandand/orVegetation 85 85 95
WetlandsandWetPonds 20 45 60
UrbanInfiltrationPracticeswithoutsandand/orvegetation 80 85 95
Bioretention–C&DSoilswithunderdrain 25 45 55
Bioretention–A&BSoilswithunderdrain 70 75 80
Bioretention–A&BSoilswithoutunderdrain 80 85 90
PermeablePavementw/osandorvegetationC&Dsoilswithunderdrain 10 20 55
PermeablePavementw/osandorvegetationA&Bsoilswithunderdrain 45 50 70
PermeablePavementw/osandorvegetationA&Bsoilsw/ounderdrain 75 80 85
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Table3‐1: BMPsApprovedforUseintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2(continued)
PracticesTotal
NitrogenTotal
PhosphorusTotal
Sediment EfficiencyRates%URBANSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTBMPs (continued)
PermeablePavement–withsandorvegetationC&Dsoilswithunderdrain 20 20 55
PermeablePavement–withsandorvegetationA&Bsoilswithunderdrain 50 50 70
PermeablePavement–withsandorvegetationA&Bsoilsw/ounderdrain
80 80 85
VegetatedOpenChannels(GrassChannels)C&Dsoilsw/ounderdrain 10 10 50
VegetatedOpenChannels(GrassChannels)A&Bsoilsw/ounderdrain
45 45 70
Bioswale(DrySwale) 70 75 80
UrbanNutrientManagement 17 22 N/A
StreetSweeping(Bimonthly) 3 3 9
LOADREDUCTIONBMPs
UrbanStreamRestoration
Non‐structuralshorelineerosioncontrol‐useofnativevegetationtostabilizetidalshorelines (75)* (75)* (75)*
Structuralshorelinecontrol–shorelinehardeningwithrigid,barrier‐typestructures
(75)* (75)* (75)*
OffshoreBreakwater–LivingShorelines (75)* (75)* (75)*
HeadlandControl (50)* (50)* (50)*
OTHERPRACTICES
SepticPumping 50
SepticDenitrification 50
*ValuesinparenthesisarelistedaspossiblevaluesinSection6.8ofBestManagementPracticesforNutrientsandSediments(2010).
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐7
Table3‐2: FactorsInfluencingtheSuitabilityofVirginiaApprovedBMPs(VADCRandWaterResourcesResearchCenter,2009)
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐8 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Figure 3‐2: Runoff Reduction and Nutrient Removal Rates for Virginia Approved BMPs (VA DCR and Water Resources Research Center, 2009)
PracticeDesignLevel
RunoffReduction
TN EMC
Removal 3
TP EMC Removal
TP Load
Removal 6
1 2
25 to 50 1 0 0 25 to 50
1
1 25 to 50 1 0 0 25 to 50
1
2 5
50 to 75 1 0 0 50 to 75
1
1 10 to 20 1 20 23
Soil Compost Amendment
1 45 0 0 452 60 0 0 601 Up to 90
3,5 0 0 Up to 90 3,5
1 45 25 25 592 75 25 25 811 50 15 25 632 90 15 25 931 40 40 25 552 80 60 50 90
1 40 40 25 55
1 40 25 55 522 60 35 74 761 0 25 25 202 0 35 35 401 0 30 30 602 0 45 45 651 0 25 25 502 0 55 55 751 0 30 (20)
430 (20)
450 (45)
4
2 0 40 (30) 4
40 (30) 4
75 (65) 4
1 0 10 10 152 15 10 24 31
Ext. Det. Ponds 1515
Notes 1 Lower rate is for HSG soils C and D, Higher rate is for HSG soils A and B.2 The removal can be increased to 50% for C and D soils by adding soil compost amendments, and may be higher yet if combined with secondary runoff reduction practices.3 Credit up to 90% is possible if all water from storms of 1-inch or less is used through demand, and the tank is sized such that no overflow
occurs. The total credit may not exceed 90%.4 Lower nutrient removal in parentheses apply to wet ponds in coastal plain terrain.
5 See BMP design specification for an explanation of how additional pollutant removal can be achieved.
6 Total mass load removed is the product of annual runoff reduction rate and change in nutrient EMC.
ConstructedWetlands
5075
WetPonds
50 (45) 4
75 (65) 4
WetSwales
2040
FilteringPractices
6065
UrbanBioretention
64No Level 2 Design
DrySwales
2040
InfiltrationPractices
5792
BioretentionPractices
6490
RainwaterHarvesting
Up to 90 3,5
No Level 2 DesignPermeablePavement
5981
GrassChannels
15
No Level 2 DesignCan be used to Decrease Runoff Coefficient for Turf Cover at Site. See the design specs for Rooftop Disconnection, Sheet Flow to Vegetated Filter or Conserved Open Space, and Grass Channel
VegetatedRoof
4560
TN LoadRemoval
RooftopDisconnect
25 to 50 1
No Level 2 DesignSheet Flowto Veg. Filter or Conserv. Open Space
25 to 50 1
50 to 75 1
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐9
Figure 3‐3: Maryland’s list of Alternative Urban BMPs (MDE, 2011)
TN TP TSSMechanical Street Sweeping 4% 4% 10% 0.07Regenerative/Vacuum Street Sweeping 5% 6% 25% 0.13Nutrient Management 17% 22% 0% 0.09Grass/Meadow Buffers 30% 40% 55% 0.27Forest Buffers 45% 40% 55% 0.34Impervious Urban to Pervious (MDE) 13% 72% 84% 0.62Impervious Urban to Forest (MDE) 71% 94% 93% 1.00Planting Trees on Pervious Urban (MDE) 66% 77% 57% 0.38Planting Trees on Impervious Urban (MDE) 71% 94% 93% 1.00Reforestation on Pervious Urban (MDE) 66% 77% 57% 0.38Reforestation on Impervious Urban (MDE) 71% 94% 93% 1.00
TN TP TSSCatch Basin Cleaning 1.5 0.6 600 0.40Storm Drain Vacuuming 1.5 0.6 600 0.40Mechanical Street Sweeping 1.5 0.6 600 0.40Regenerative/Vacuum Street Sweeping 1.5 0.6 600 0.40
TN TP TSS
Stream Restoration 0.02 0.035 2.55 0.01Shoreline Stabilization (MDE) 0.16 0.11 451 0.04*
TN TP TSS
Septic Pumping 0.6 0 0 0.03Septic Denitrification 6.0 0 0 0.26Septic Connections to WWTP (MDE) 9.0 0 0 0.39
EducationSub-SoilingTrash RemovalPet Waste ManagementOutfall StabilizationFloodplain RestorationRiver Bank StabilizationBio-Reactor Carbon FilterDisconnection of Illicit Discharges
BMP PracticeEfficiency Per Acre Impervious Acre
Equivalent
BMP Practice
Pounds Reduced perTon of Collected Dry Material
Impervious Acre Equivalent
Alternative BMPs for Consideration
*Only nutrient values were used to derive impervious acre equivalent.
BMP PracticePounds Reduced per Linear Foot Impervious Acre
Equivalent
BMP PracticePounds Reduced per Unit Impervious Acre
Equivalent
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐10 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Figure 3‐4: University of Maryland BMP Cost Estimates (King and Hagan, 2011)
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐11
3.2 Urban Land Use Change BMPs
UrbanlandusechangeBMPsthatsatisfythecriteriaofbeingappropriateforuseonprivatepropertiesinHamptonRoadsinclude:
Imperviousurbansurfacereduction;and
Urbantreeplanting.
3.2.1 Impervious Urban Surface Reduction
AccordingtoBestManagementPracticesforSedimentControlandWaterClarityEnhancement(CBP,2006),andothersourcesliketheScenarioBuilderdocumentation,imperviousurbansurfacereductionreducesimpervioussurfacestopromoteinfiltrationandpercolationofstormwaterrunoffandcanincludethefollowing:
Naturalareaconservationtomaintainareassuchasforests,grasslands,andmeadowsthatencouragestormwaterinfiltration;
Replacementofexistingimpervioussurfaceslikepatios,walkways,anddrivewayswithperviouspavement,pavers,orlandscapedplantingbeds;
Disconnectionofrooftoprunoff,practicesknownasrooftopretrofits,rooftopdisconnections,ordownspoutdisconnects,thatcaptureandcontrolstormwaterrunofffromrooftopsanddirectthewaterintorainbarrels,cisterns,andraintanksortoaperviousareathatallowsthewatertoinfiltrateintotheground;
Disconnectionofnon‐rooftopimperviousareas,practicesthatdirectrunoffassheetflowfromimperviouspavedsurfaces(likedriveways,patios,andwalkways)ontopervioussurfacesorforestedareasallowingthewatertoinfiltrate;and
Greenroofs.
AllofthesepracticesaremodeledasalandusechangefromimpervioustoperviousurbanlandsorimpervioustoforestlandsintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel.AsummaryofthepollutantreductionefficienciesassociatedwithImperviousUrbanSurfaceReductionfromAccountingforStormwaterWasteloadAllocationsandImperviousAcresTreated,Draft(MDE,2011)isprovidedinFigure3‐5.Virginia’srunoffreductionratesareprovidedinFigure3‐2.
TypicalBMPsthatMS4localitiespromoteandincentivizeonresidentialpropertyinclude:
Rainbarrels,
Downspoutdisconnections,
Perviouspavers,
Impervioussurfacesdrainingtoadjacentraingardensorlandscapedbeds,and
Replacementofimpervioussurfaceswithlandscapedbeds.
MoststakeholdersinterviewednotedthatwhilerainbarrelsmaynotthebestBMPs,therainbarrelsandrainbarrelworkshopsoffercitizeneducationandengagementopportunitiesandareoftenthefirststeptowardsincreasedenvironmentalstewardshipandtheuseofotherBMPs.Therainbarrelsalsoserveasvisualreminderandsetanexampleofwater‐friendlybehaviorforotherpropertyownerswithinaneighborhood.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐12 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Figure 3‐5: Pollutant Reduction Efficiencies Associated with Impervious Urban Surface Reduction (MDE, 2011)
3.2.1.1 Issues to Consider
Rainbarrels,tanks,andcisternsgenerallycannotbeusedtoachievesignificantrunoffreductionforatypicalresidentialsettingbecauseofinsufficientstoragecapacityand/orsiteconstraints.Schuelernotesthefollowingexample:Inordertocapture40%oftherunofffroma1600squarefootroofresultingfroma1.2inchrainfallevent,ahomeownerwouldneedeither51rainbarrels(55gallons/each),3raintanks(1000gallons/each),or1cistern(3000gallons).Mosturbanpropertiesdon’thavethespaceforlargecisternsorraintanks,andmosthomeownerswhohaverainbarrelsonlyinstallone.Schuelersuggeststhatdownspoutdisconnectsmaybethemostcost‐effectivestrategyaslongastheyactuallyreducestormwaterrunofffromimpervioussurfacesandnotesthefollowing(Schueler,September15,2011webcast):
Thebestsitesfordownspoutdisconnectsareinclusterswithinneighborhoods.
Downspoutdisconnectstothesurfacetypicallyrequiremorethan“justinstallingflexiblepipe,particularlyattightsites.”
“Subsurfacedisconnectionsaremoreexpensiveandareoftencombinedwithotherprojects(e.g.,raingardens)”.
Surfacedisconnectionsneedtherightgrade,distanceandfilterpath.
Downspoutdisconnectstendtobehardertoselltohomeowners.
DifficultieswithhomeownerinstallationofBMPslikeincorrectdownspoutdisconnectionsandoverflowingorinactiverainbarrelscontributedtoWashington,DCDOEdecisiontocoordinatethedesignandinstallationofBMPsonprivateproperty(Guillaume,n.d.).
Mostincentiveprogramsthatpromotereplacementofimpervioussurfaceswithperviouspavementorlandscapedbedshaveminimumarearequirements.ArlingtonCountyrequiresthatatleast150squarefeetbereplaced.Washington,DConlyissuesrebatesfordrivewaysorparkingareasandnotwalkwaysorsmallpatios.AnneArundelCountyrequiresaminimumremovalof20%ofthetotalimperviousareaonthesite.TheMontgomeryCountyprogramhasseparaterequirementsforreplacementofimpervioussurfacewithpermeablepaversandturfornativeplants.Mostprogramsrequireperviouspavementtobeinstalledbyaprofessionalcontractor.Allrebateprogramsrequirethepropertyownertosignamaintenanceagreementbecauseperviouspavementmustbesweptandkeptfreeofdebristofunctionproperly.
Land Use TN (lbs/acre/yr) TP (lbs/acre/yr) TSS (tons/acre/yr)Conversion from Urban Impervious 10.85 2.04 0.44
Pervious 9.43 0.57 0.07Forest 3.16 0.13 0.03Pervious 13% 72% 84%Forest 71% 94% 93%
(Adapted from CBP Model, Version 5.3.0, 2011)
Conversion to
Conversion Efficiency
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐13
Stakeholdershaveobservedthefollowingissueswithrainbarrelsanddownspoutdisconnections:
Rainbarrelsrequirewintershutoffanddewatering.
Outdoorwaterdemandislowestwhenrainfallishighest.
Homeowners,whileinitiallyenthusiasticaboutrainbarrels,mayneverinstallthebarrelsoreventuallyabandonthem.
Improperdownspoutdisconnectionscanleadtoerosionproblemsand/orbasementfloodingissues.
Inadditiontothelimitationsmentionedabove,downspoutdisconnects,rainbarrels/cisterns,greenroofs,raingardens,andpermeablepavershavesizingandcostconsiderations.Greenroofsandreplacingimpervioussurfaceswithpervioussurfacescanbecostprohibitiveforsomeprivatepropertyowners.SomelocalitieslikeWashington,DChaveincreasedtherebateamountfordrivewayreplacementswithpervioussurfaces.Costscanvarydependingonthelevelofexpertiseandcostofservicesassociatedwithdesign,installation,andmaintenance.Figures3‐6,3‐7,and3‐8identifyseveraldesignconsiderationsincludingdrainagearea/sizing,costs,andtheamountofimpervioussurfacewithinawatershedthatimpacttheuseofimperviousurbansurfacereductionBMPsandon‐siteLIDretrofits.ThereaderisreferredtotheVirginiaBMPClearinghousefordetailedguidanceonrooftopandimpervioussurfacedisconnection.
Figure 3‐6: Drainage –Surface Area Relationships Associated with BMP Retrofits (Schueler et al., 2007)
3.2.1.2 Tracking
MostlocalitiesthatincentivizeimpervioussurfacereductionforMS4permitcompliancetrackparticipantsintheincentiveprogramsthroughadatabase/GISsystem.Oneprimaryconcernisthelong‐termguaranteethatimpervioussurfacereductionBMPsarestillthere,functioning,andmaintained.Programstaffnotedthatsomepracticeslikerainbarrelsareabandonedovertime.Othersnoteddiscontinuityinpracticeswithachangeinpropertyownership.Richmondrequiresrecipientsofutilitycreditstore‐applyeverythreeyears.AdditionalrecommendationsontrackingandverificationareprovidedinSection3.5,StructuralStormwaterRetrofitBMPs,ofthisdocument.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐14 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Figure 3‐7: Retrofit Cost Estimates (Schueler et al., 2007)
Figure 3‐8: Suitability of BMPs Based on Contributing Drainage Area (VA DCR)
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐15
3.2.2 Urban Tree Planting
UrbantreeplantingistreatedasalandusechangeintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel.UrbanforestbuffersaretreatedasanefficiencyreductionandarediscussedinSection3.4.2.ThecurrentModeldocumentation(5.3.0)statesthaturbantreesshouldbeplantedwiththeintenttoestablishaforestedconditioninordertocountasaBMP.
TheChesapeakeBayProgramhasestablishedaForestryWorkgroupthatisconsideringnewtypesofUrbanforestBMPsin2012‐2013(seeAppendixG).TheForestryWorkgroupdevelopednewworkingdefinitionsandproposedefficienciesfortreeplantingonagricultureandurbanlandsin2011.Theinterimefficiencyforurbantreeplantingof100treesequalsoneacreofforestwasincorporatedintoVASTandutilizedbylocalitiesintheirPhaseIIWIPstrategies.During2012,theForestryWorkgroup,incoordinationwiththeUrbanStormwaterWorkgroup,willrefinetheserecommendationsandformalizenewefficienciesthatwillbeincorporatedintotheBayModel.
TheNPDESguidancedocumentdevelopedbyMaryland,AccountingforStormwaterWasteloadAllocationsandImperviousAcresTreated,Draft(MDE,June2011)isconsistentwiththeForestryWorkgroup’srecommendation.Figure3‐9summarizestheCBPTreePlantingandReforestationpollutantloadreductionefficienciesfortheseBMPs.Inordertoclaimthesecredits,“asurvivalrateof100treesperacreorgreaterisnecessarywithatleast50%ofthetreesbeing2inchesorgreaterindiameterat4½feetabovegroundlevel.Becausecontiguousparcelsofoneacreorgreatermaybedifficulttolocateforanurbantreeplantingprogram,anaggregateofsmallersitesmaybeused.”
InTechnicalBulletinNo9,Schuelerrecommendsthaturbanreforestationpracticesto“restorecompactedsoilsandplanttreeswiththeexplicitgoalofestablishingamatureforestcanopythatwillinterceptrainfall,increaseevapotranspirationrates,andenhancesoilinfiltrationrates”becategorizedandmodeledinfivedifferentwaysincluding(Schueler,2011):
1. UplandReforestation:treeplantingonaturforopenareathatdoesnotreceivestormwaterrunoff.
2. FilterStrips:anengineeredpracticewheretreesareplantedinazonethatisdesignedtoacceptrunofffromadjacentimperviouscover.
3. UrbanStreamBuffers:plantingtreeswithin100feetofastreamorwetlandtocreateaforestbufferandtheninstallingcontrolsattheboundarysothatthebuffercantreatsheetflowfromadjacentperviousorimperviousareas.
4. UrbanTreeCanopy:plantingtreesinthestreetrightofwayinveryurbanareastocreateamatureforestcanopyoverimperviousareas.Thecanopyinterceptsrainfallandactsasaverticalstormwaterdisconnectionduringthegrowingseason(Cappiellaetal,2006).
5. UrbanTreeCanopywithBMPs:urbantreecanopyinstallationsthatalsoemployexpandedtreepitstofilterrunofffromadjacentimperviousareas.
TheForestryWorkgroupwilltakethesepointsintoconsiderationwhenmakingitsfinalBMPrecommendationstotheChesapeakeBayProgram.Multiplebenefitsarederivedfromtreeplanting,andincreasingtreesonprivatepropertyisastrategythatsatisfiesthegoalsandobjectivesofmanydifferentstakeholdersassociatedwithurbanforestry,communitybeautification,greenbuilding,ChesapeakeBayAct,greeninfrastructure,floodmitigation,and
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐16 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
habitatrestorationprograms.ManyofthemodelprogramsidentifiedinotherjurisdictionswithinandoutsidetheChesapeakeBaywatershedpromoteandincentivizetreeplantingasaBMP.
Figure 3‐9: Recommended Tree Planting Efficiencies (MDE 2011)
3.2.2.1 Issues to Consider
Physicalsiteconstraintssuchassize,utilities,buildinglocations,adequateroomforrootgrowth,andexistingsoilsaresomeoftheissuesthatmustbeconsideredintheuseofthisBMP.Maintenanceandcareoftrees,particularlywithinthefirsttwoyearsofplanting,arecriticaltoensuretreesurvivalandhealth.AnnEnglish,oftheMontgomeryCountyRainScapesprogramsuggeststhatcontractswithprivatecontractorswhoinstalltreesshouldincludeaguaranteedsurvivalrateoftwoyears.
Inurbanareas,theremaybeopportunitiestoconvertlandtoforestwhenthepropertyisnolongerusedasaplayingfield(forinstance);however,localordinancesmayneedtobechangedfirst.Onestakeholdernotedthatexistinglanduseordinancesforopenspaceandrecreationalusesrequireacertainamountoflandtoremainasturf.
WithintheHamptonRoadsarea,treesizeisasignificantconsiderationaslargetreesmaybeperceivedasahazardduringcoastalstormsandmanywaterfrontpropertyownersdon’twanttreestoblockwaterviews.
3.2.2.2 Tracking
Schuelermakesthefollowingrecommendationstolocalgovernmentregardingtracking,reporting,andverificationoftreeplantingasaBMP(Schueler,2011):
Treesurvivalratesdependonpropercareandprotectionandittypicallytakes“atleast10to15yearsforatreeplantingtoacquireaforest‐likecondition”.
Localitiesshouldwait2yearsaftertheinitialtreeplantingbeforeclaimingcreditinordertoensureadequategrowthandsurvival.
Aftertheinitial2yearsestablishment,treeplantinginspectionsandforestmanagementactivitiesshouldcontinueintwoyearintervals.
Land Use TN (lbs/acre/yr) TP (lbs/acre/yr) TSS (tons/acre/yr)Urban Pervious 9.43 0.57 0.07Urban Impervious 10.85 2.04 0.44
Conversion to Forest 3.16 0.13 0.03Urban Pervious 66% 77% 57%Urban Impervious 71% 94% 93%
(Adapted from CBP Model, Version 5.3.0, 2011)
Conversion from
Conversion Efficiency
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐17
3.3 Load Reduction BMPs
LoadreductionBMPsthatsatisfythecriteriaofbeingappropriateforuseonprivatepropertiesinHamptonRoadsareidentifiedanddescribedinSection6oftheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2documentationandinclude:
Urbanstreamrestoration;
Non‐structuralshorelineerosioncontrol;
Structuralshorelineerosioncontrol;
Livingshorelinesandheadlandcontrol;and
SAVandOysterRestoration
3.3.1 Urban Stream Restoration
TheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3documentationdefinesstreamrestorationasacollectionofsite‐specificengineeringtechniquesusedtostabilizeanerodingstreambankorchannel.Theobjectiveistopreventfurthererosionandimprovedownstreamwaterqualitybyreducingnutrientsandsedimententeringthestream.TheoriginalloadreductionratefortheurbanstreamrestorationBMPisbeingconsideredforrevisiontoahigherratebasedonrecentdataforstreamrestorationprojects.TheCBPUrbanStormwaterCommitteeisexpectedtorecommendahigherratein2012(Schueler,2011).
3.3.1.1 Issues to Consider
AlthoughUrbanStreamRestorationprojectsarenottypicallyinstalledormaintainedbyprivatepropertyowners,theyareoftenlocatedwithinaresidentialsettingoncommonlyownedcommunitypropertyoradjacenttoprivateproperty.Publicperceptionandpropertyownersupportareimportantconsiderationsforprojectplanners.Whiletheseprojectsrequiresignificanttechnicalexpertiseandthepropersuppliesandequipment,installationcostsmaybereducedthroughtheuseofvolunteerlabor.Theseprojectsalsoprovideanopportunitytoeducateandengagecitizensandavarietyofstakeholders.InAnneArundelCounty,aWatershedStewardorganizedaRegenerativeStormwaterConveyancesystemprojectwithdesignandinstallationguidanceprovidedbythetechnicalconsortiumandvolunteerlaborfromthecommunity.JamesCityCounty’sPRIDEprogramhasconductedstreamrestorationprojectsandusedcitizenstoprovidevolunteerlabor.
3.3.1.2 Tracking
Schuelermakesthefollowingrecommendationstolocalgovernmentregardingtracking,reporting,andverificationofurbanstreamrestorationprojects(Schueler,2011):
Trackthelengthofqualifyingstreamrestorationprojectsinstalledeachyear,
Establishpostconstructioncertificationprotocoltoconfirmstreamrestorationpracticesareinstalledandfunctioningasdesignedwithinthestreamreachpriortoinclusioninalocaland/orstatetrackingdatabase.
Maintainstreamrestorationprojectfilesforeachdevelopmentsitewherethecreditisclaimedforthelifetimeoftheproject(usually20to25years).
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐18 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
BMPcreditdurationisfiveyears,butcreditcanberenewediffieldinspectionindicatesthestreamrestorationprojectisstillmeetingitsdesignobjectives.
3.3.2 Tidal Shoreline BMPs
TidalshorelineBMPsincludingstructuralshorelineerosioncontrolandlivingshorelineerosioncontrolmeasures(non‐structuralshorelineerosioncontrol,offshorebreakwatersandheadlandcontrols)arebeingusedintheHamptonRoadsarea.Non‐structuralshorelineerosioncontrolsaredefinedaserosioncontroltechniquesthatusenativevegetationincludingtidalwetlandsrestorationandriparianbufferstoreduceshorelineerosion.VIMSdefinesoffshorebreakwaterastheuseofnativetidalmarshand/orbeachvegetationsupportedbylow‐profilestructuresincludingmarshsills.Headlandcontrolisdefinedasshorelinestabilizationwithstructuresthatsupportpocketbeaches.AlltidalshorelineBMPsaremodeledasloadreductionsappliedalongatidalboundaryoftheChesapeakeBaymodeldomain.TheseloadreductionsaffectthenutrientandsedimentloadinputstotheChesapeakeBayWaterQualityandSedimentTransportModel.
WhiletheseshorelinepracticesarediscussedasappropriateBMPsinmanydifferentdocuments,theseBMPsarenotincludedinScenarioBuilderorVAST.Giventheseinconsistencies,manylocalitiesarenotevenawarethattheseareappropriatepracticesthatshouldbepromoted,tracked,andreported.
Themultiplebenefitsderivedfromtidalwetlandsarewelldocumented,andwetlandsareprotectedbyStateandFederalRegulations.Promotingtherestorationoftidalwetlandsisrecognizedasaneffectiveerosioncontrolstrategy.Virginiarecentlyenactedlegislationthatwillmakelivingshorelinesthepreferredshorelineerosioncontroltechnique,andVIMSandtheVirginiaMarineResourceCommission(VMRC)areworkingonpermittingrequirementsandguidancetofacilitatetheinstallationandpermittingoflivingshorelines.EncouragingtheuseoflivingshorelinesasaBMPhasmultiplebenefits.Tidalwetlandsandlivingshorelinescanalsohelpaddressneedsforcoastalhazardmitigationandsealevelriseadaptation.
3.3.2.1 Issues to Consider
BecausemostoftheactivitiesassociatedwithtidalshorelineBMPs(siteassessment,design,installation,inspectionandpermitting)requireahigherdegreeoftechnicalexpertiseandoversight,projectslikelivingshorelinesandtidalwetlandsrestorationcanbesomewhatcostly.However,costscanbeoffsetorreducedbyutilizinggrantfundsandcollaboratingwithresearchinstitutions,regulatorystaff,andstaffscientistsofenvironmentalNGOs.Citizensandtrainedenvironmentalstewardscanfurtherreducecostsbyprovidingvolunteerlabor.
Forinstance,aChesapeakeBayFoundationVoiCeSgraduateacquiredgrantfundsandcoordinatedprofessionalexpertsandvolunteerstoinstallalivingshorelineprojectattheJamesCityCounty4‐HClubpropertyontheJamesRiver.WhentheJamesCityCountyParksandRecreationDepartmentobservedthesuccessoftheprojectinstoppingshorelineerosion,theyappliedforandreceivedagranttoinstallalivingshorelineontheadjacentJamestownBeachproperty.Volunteersfromalocalcitizensgroupplantednativegrasses.
3.3.2.2 Tracking
Inordertoinstallalivingshorelineproject,aprivatepropertyownermustapplytoVMRCforapermit.VIMSisalsoinvolvedinthepermitreviewprocess.Localgovernment,VMRC,andVIMS
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐19
shouldworktogethertoidentifyexistinglivingshorelineprojectsandestablishprotocolfortrackingandreportingtheactionstotheStateandEPA.ModeldocumentationfortheWatershedModel5.3.2indicatesthatmodeldevelopersmayhaveacquiredexistingshorelineinformationthroughGISdata.
TrackingandverificationcouldfollowaprotocolsimilartoonesuggestedbySchuelerforotherBMPs(Schueler,2011).Localitiesshouldmaintainaprojectfileforeachprojectinstalledthatincludesthefollowing:asitemapoftheprojectlocation(s);thecontactinformationforthepartyresponsibleformaintenance;designinformation;maintenanceandinspectionreports;digitalphotos;andthenutrientandsedimentreductioncredits.
Thefileshouldbemaintainedforthelifeofnutrientreductioncredits(approximately25years).Inaddition,pertinentinformationshouldbestoredinaGIS‐basedBMPtrackingsystemincludingtheproject/propertylocationbyGPScoordinates,theassociated12digitwatershedcode,thelengthofshorelineinlinearfeet,thetypeoflivingshoreline,andthecreditsclaimed.OncethevegetationisestablishedandtheinspectorconfirmstheLivingShorelineisfunctioningasdesigned,theBMPsshouldbevisuallyinspectedatleastonceevery5years.
3.3.3 Marine Sewage Disposal Facilities
MarinesewagedisposalfacilitiesareBMPsidentifiedintheTrackingBestManagementPracticeNutrientReductionsintheChesapeakeBayProgram(ChesapeakeBayProgramModelingSubcommittee,1998).Thesefacilitiesinclude“pumpoutandportabletoiletdumpstationslocatedshoresidetoallowboaterstoproperlydisposeofsewage…andaneducationprogramtoencourageuseofthefacilities.”
3.3.3.1 Issues to Consider
InthePhaseIVChesapeakeBayWatershedModel,thesereductionswere“subtractedfromthefinalsimulationWatershedModeloutputvalues.”TheestimatednutrientandsedimentremovalratesforthisBMPare43%fortotalnitrogen,53%fortotalphosphorus,and53%fortotalsediment.WatershedModel5.3.2documentationdoesnotincludeadiscussionofthisBMP.AdditionalinformationisneededtodetermineifthisBMPwasincorporatedintothemostrecentmodelruns,andifthereisamechanismforlocalitiestoreceivecreditfortheseBMPs.
3.3.3.2 Tracking
Ifnotalreadydoingso,localitiesshouldtrackandreportmarinesewagedisposalfacilitiessothatnutrientreductionscanbecreditedtowardWIPandlocalTMDLefforts.
3.3.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Plantings and Oyster Restoration
Submergedaquaticvegetation(SAV)restoration,oysterrestoration,andoysteraquaculturewereconsideredBMPsbytheCBPSedimentWorkgroupoftheNutrientSubcommitteein2006accordingtoBestManagementPracticesforSedimentControlandWaterClarityEnhancement,whichdocumentsthefindingsfromaFebruary2003CBPSedimentBMPWorkshop(CBP,October2006).AccordingtomeetingminutesfromtheWorkshop,meetingparticipants:
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐20 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
DecidedthatSAVplantingsandpreservationwouldhaveasignificantpositivelocalimpactonwaterclarityandthatthepracticewillbepursuedasafunctionofclarityimprovementsratherthanloadreduction;and
Agreedthatoysterscanplayanimportantroleinwaterclarityandreducingnutrients,andthatthegroupwouldpursuethepracticesofrestorationandoysteraquacultureintributarystrategies.
3.3.4.1 Issues to Consider
Asstatedpreviously,SAVandoysterpopulationsaremodeledintheChesapeakeBayWaterQualityandSedimentTransportModel.AdditionalresearchisneededtoclarifyhowlocalitiescangetcreditfortheseBMPs.
3.3.4.2 Tracking
Ataminimum,localitiesandNGOsshouldtrackandreportSAVplantingsandoysterrestorationeffortstoVIMS.VIMSmonitorsSAVdistributionintheChesapeakeBayandcanreportdetailedchangestoEPA.Inaddition,theVIMSMolluscanEcologyProgramcollectsoysterpopulationdatainsupportofStatemanagementandrestorationefforts.
3.4 Non Structural Stormwater Management BMPs
MostoftheBMPsincludedintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2andtheVirginiaStormwaterBMPClearinghousearestructuralandrequirecompliancewithspecificdesignstandardsinordertomeettheremovalefficiencieslistedinTable3‐1andFigure3‐2.ThosepracticesarediscussedindetailinSection3.5.Thissectionfocusesonnon‐structuralBMPsthatcanbeimplementedonprivatepropertyincluding:
Urbannutrientmanagement;
Forestbuffers;and
Wetlandsrestoration.
3.4.1 Urban Nutrient Management
ThecurrentChesapeakeBayWatershedModeldocumentationdefinesurbannutrientmanagementasthereductionoffertilizertograsslawnsandotherurbanareas.Theimplementationofurbannutrientmanagementisbasedonpubliceducationandawareness,targetingsuburbanresidencesandbusinesses,withemphasisonreducingexcessivefertilizeruse.Thecurrentreductionefficiencyis17%fornitrogenand22%forphosphorus.
TheCBPhasconvenedanurbannutrientmanagementBMPexpertpaneltostandardizethedefinitionofthispracticeformodelcreditandcalculatethephosphorusremovalpotentialofnewlegislation,passedbytheVirginiaGeneralAssembly,torestricttheuseofphosphorusinturffertilizers(ActsofAssemblychapter341)(seehttp://lis.virginia.gov/cgi‐bin/legp604.exe?111+ful+CHAP0341).TheexpertpanelrecommendationsshouldbepresentedtotheUrbanStormwaterWorkgroupforreviewin2012.
AnumberofkeyVirginiaWIPstrategiesfallundertheurbannutrientmanagementBMPcategoryandarediscussedinVirginia’sPhaseIanddraftPhaseIIWIPs.Thenutrient
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐21
managementstrategieswilltargetnutrientmanagementandnutrientreductiononbothpublicandprivateproperties,includinggolfcoursesandresidentiallawns.Manylocalwatershedgroupsandlocalities,throughoutreachandeducationeffortsassociatedwithMS4permits,promoteenvironmentallyfriendlylawncareincludingnutrientmanagement.Someeffortshavealsofocusedonreducingoreliminatinglawnsandreplacingthemwithalternativeground‐coversorlandscapedbedsofnativeplants.
ThefollowingisalistofState‐runcampaignsinVirginiathatfocusonwatershed‐friendlylawncareandlandscapingpractices:
VADCR“PlantMorePlants”campaign(http://www.plantmoreplants.com/)isencouragingcitizensinHamptonRoadsandRichmondtoadoptaseriesofwatershed‐friendlypracticespromotedbytheChesapeakeConservationLandscapingCouncil(CCLC).
VirginiaCoastalZoneManagement(VACZM)EasternShoreNativesCampaign:http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/go‐native.html.
VirginiaDepartmentofGameandInlandFisheries(DGIF)HabitatPartnersProgram:http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/habitat/.
UrbanNutrientManagementcertificationthroughVirginiaDCRisavailableforcitizensandLandscapeProfessionals.NutrientManagersarerequiredtoreportthelocationandtotalacresfornutrientmanagementplanstoDCR.DCRthencompilesthisbywatershedandprovidestheinformationtoEPAformodeling.Seehttp://www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/nutmgt.shtml.
3.4.1.1 Issues to Consider
SomewatershedgroupsandnutrientmanagershavereportedthatsoilstestanalysesperformedbyVirginiaTechrecommendhighernutrientapplicationsthanisneededintheHamptonRoadsRegion.LynnhavenRiverNOWandElizabethRiverProjecthaveformedanarrangementwithanindependentsoilstestingcompanyinRichmondtoperform“reducednutrient”analyseswhenrequestedbymembersofthetwoorganizations.TheTurfLoveprograminJamesCityCountyhasconvincedseveralgolfcoursesintheareatoadoptnutrientmanagementplansandmayserveasamodelforotherlocalities.
Beyondtheseefforts,areasonablefocusmaybetoworkwithlawncarecompaniestomodifytheirnutrientmanagementplans;however,manyofthesemaintenancecompaniesbenefiteconomicallyfromthesaleandapplicationoffertilizers.
Becauseagreatdealoftimeandmoneyisspentineducationandoutreachaswellaslawncaresupplies,Schuelerhasrecommendedaprogramthatwouldpaypeopletostopusingfertilizersforthreeyearsandobservetheresults.Hearguesthatlocalitiesandwatershedgroupscouldreducethetimeandcostsassociatedwiththedeliveryoftheselawn‐caremessagesandensureaquantifiableamountofnutrientreduction.
Severalstakeholderswouldliketoseeanefforttoreplacelawnswithalternativenativegroundcoversorfocusonreplacingportionsoflawnareaswithnativeplantsandcompostedsoils.Bothoptionswouldeliminatetheneedforfertilizers.Onestakeholdernotedthatnitrogenismoreofaconcernthanphosphorusintidalwatersandtheuseofnitrogeninfertilizerswillstillneedtobeaddressedevenafterthephosphorusbanisinplace.Anotherstakeholderfromamore
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐22 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
rural/suburbancountynotedthatfew,ifany,propertyownersfertilizetheirlawnsinthefirstplace.
ReplacementoflawnswithnativeplantspointstoaproblemsomeoftheproposedBMPsmayhavewithlocalgovernmentcodesandordinances.PropertyownersinaHamptonRoadslocalityreplacedtheirfrontlawnwithawildflowermeadow/butterflygarden.Afteraneighborcomplainedaboutthe“weeds”,theCitydeterminedthatthe“weeds”wereanuisance.When,thepropertyownersrefusedtocutthe“weeds”,theCitybroughtinamaintenancecrewtomowthepropertyowner’sfrontyard.Asimilarconflictcanoccurinneighborhoodswithhomeownersassociationsandyardcarecovenants.
Schuelerhasnotedthatoneofthekeytechnicalissuesassociatedwithgettingcreditforurbannutrientmanagementisgettinganaccuratecountoftheacresofperviouslandunderaplanresultingfromaneducationcampaign.Inordertoobtaindetailedaccountsofacresundernutrientmanagementplan,someonewouldneedtodoadetailedsurveyoffertilizerbehaviorofthepropertyowner.“Inaddition,changesinhomeownerfertilizationbehaviormaystallorevenreverseunlessoutreachcampaignsarerepeated.”(Schueler,2011)
Coordinationandcollaborationtoeliminatecode/covenantconflicts,increasethenumberofcertifiednutrientmanagers,andconvincepropertyownerstoadoptwatershed‐friendlyturfandlawn‐carepracticesarecriticaltothesuccessoftheVirginiaWIPstrategy.
3.4.1.2 Tracking
UrbannutrientmanagerscertifiedbyVirginiaDCRreportthenumberofurbannutrientmanagementplanstheygeneratetoDCRonanannualbasis.LocalitiesandDCRshouldworktogethertodevelopareportingprotocol.Inaddition,NGOprogramsliketheElizabethRiverProjectRiverStarHomesortheLynnhavenRiverNOWPearlHomesprogramspromoteurbannutrientmanagementplansamongparticipantsandmembers.LocalitiesmightbeabletocoordinatewithNGOstotrackpropertieswithintheprogramthatpracticeurbannutrientmanagement.
3.4.2 Forest Buffers
AccordingtotheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2documentation,urbanforestbuffers(alsoknownasriparianbuffersandChesapeakeBayResourceProtectionAreas(RPAs)inHamptonRoads)is“anareaoftreesatleast35feetwideononesideofastream,usuallyaccompaniedbytrees,shrubsandothervegetationadjacenttoabodyofwater.Theriparianareaismanagedtomaintaintheintegrityofstreamchannelsandshorelines,toreducetheimpactsofuplandsourcesofpollutionbytrapping,filtering,andconvertingsediments,nutrients,andotherchemicals.”
Restorationofriparianbuffersisasimplelandscapingstrategytoreduceflooding,enhanceChesapeakeBayRPAs,supportgreeninfrastructureplans,increasewildlifehabitat,reduceerosion,andprotectwaterquality.PlantingnativeplantsandincreasingRPAbuffersisencouragedbyvariousstateagencies(CZM,DGIF,DOF,andDCR),cooperativeextensionagents,MasterGardeners,MasterNaturalists,SWCDs,localenvironmentaldivisions,localurbanforestryprograms,localChesapeakeBayandWetlandsBoards,andallNGOsinHamptonRoads.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐23
Privatepropertyownersadjacenttoabodyofwatershouldbeencouragedtoplanturbanriparianforestbuffersofnativeplantswherebuffersdonotcurrentlyexistorincreasethesizeofexistingbufferstoatleast35feetwide.Replacinglawnandturfwithnativeplantriparianbuffershasanapprovednutrientandsedimentreductionefficiencyof25%forNitrogen,50%forphosphorus,and50%forsediment.
3.4.2.1 Issues to Consider
DetailedinstructionsforforestbufferestablishmentandexpansionareprovidedintheRiparianBufferModificationandMitigationGuidanceManual(VADCR,2006).OtherissuestoconsiderwerediscussedinSection3.2.2,UrbanTreePlanting.AppendixEofHRPDC’s“VegetativePracticesGuideforNonpointSourcePollutionManagement”provideslistsofrecommendedplantsforCoastalVirginiainthefollowingcategories:ErosionandSedimentControl,HardyPlantstoReclaimDisturbedAreas,PlantsforUseInandAroundInfiltrationTrenchesandDetentionBasins,TidalWetlandPlants,andWildflowers.
TheNativePlantsMarketingGrouporganizedbyCZMidentifiedaneedforaconsistentlistofnativeplantssuitableforthecoastalplainandreadilyavailableinlocalgardencentersandnurseries.JamesCityCountyworkedwithlocalVCEagentsandtheJohnClaytonChapteroftheVirginiaNativePlantSocietytodevelopalistofplantssuitableforRPAbufferplantings.ThelistisprovidedintheReferencesectionofthisdocumentunderJamesCityCounty.Inaddition,ERPandLRNprovidelistsofnativeplantssuitableforHamptonRoadsandhaveidentifiedsourcesfornativeplants.Theseresourcesareavailableontheirwebsites.Sometimesnativeplantsareavailablebutnotmarkedasnative,socitizensareunabletodistinguishnativefromnon‐nativeplants.Thereisaneedtoworkwithlocalnurseries,gardencenters,andgrowerstoincreasetheavailabilityandlabelingofnativeplantsinHamptonRoads.
Otherbarriersincludestakeholderperceptionsofnativeplantsas“weeds”and“messy,”thedesireofthepropertyownertoavoidblockingwaterviews,andthepersonalpreferenceformanicuredlawnsandacultivated“EnglishGarden”look.Aslongastheplantingrequiresminimalsitedisturbance,enhancingabufferispermitted.However,iftheexistingbufferhasinvasivespeciesthatneedtoberemovedortheactionhasalevelofsitedisturbancethatrequireserosionandsedimentcontrolmeasures,permitsmayberequired.Makingthepermittingprocesseasierforindividualhomeownersseekingtorestoretheirbuffersmayincreasetheadoptionofthesepractices.
3.4.2.2 Tracking
SeeSection3.2.2,UrbanTreePlantingforadditionalinformation.
3.4.3 Wetlands Restoration
Section6.8.3oftheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2documentationdescribesthewetlandsrestorationBMPasreestablishmentofformerwetlandsby“manipulatingthephysical,chemical,orbiologicalcharacteristicsofasitewiththegoalofreturningnatural/historicfunctionstoaformerwetlandandresultinginagaininwetlandacres.”AlthoughthediscussionidentifiesthisBMPasanagriculturalBMP,itisassociatedwithhighandlowintensityperviousandimperviousdevelopedlands.AccordingtoScenarioBuilderdocumentation,theremovalrateforwetlandrestorationintheCoastalPlainis25%fornitrogen,50%forphosphorus,and15%forsediment.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐24 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
3.4.3.1 Issues to Consider
AdditionalclarificationisneededfromEPAregardingwhetherthisBMPcanbeusedinurbanareas.ThisBMPwasnotincludedintheVirginiaAssessmentScenarioTool(VAST)utilizedbylocalitiestocalculatePhaseIIWIPreductions.
IfwetlandsrestorationisavailableasaBMPinurbanareas,therearesomelowcostbehaviorchangesthatlocalitiesandNGOscouldencourageprivatepropertyownerstoadopt.WithintheCommonwealthofVirginia,normallandscapingactivitiesareallowedinwetlandswithoutapermit,somanywaterfrontpropertyowners(bothprivateandpublic)mowthewetlandplantsontheirproperty.Mowedwetlandsmaylosesomeoftheirnutrientremovalfunctionandbecategorizedasturfbyaerialimagery.Restoringthesewetlandstotheirnaturalstatewillresultingreaternutrientattenuation.Iftrackedandreported,thisbehaviorchangemaybeabletobecreditedasaBMPintheWatershedmodel.TheElizabethRiverProject,throughtheRiverStarHomesprogramhasconvincedatleastonepropertyownertosignanagreementtostopmowingthetidalwetlandsonhisproperty.
Moreintensivewetlandsrestoration(removalofinvasivespecies,etc.)andactualrestorationofformerwetlandsismoredifficultandexpensiveandwillrequirewetlandspermits.ThereareexamplesofthisworkbeingperformedbyNGOsinHamptonRoadsincoordinationwithlocalgovernmentregulatorystaffandwetlandsprofessionals.TheLafayetteWetlandsPartnership,CBF,andLynnhavenRiverNOWhaveallconductedwetlandsplantings/restorationprojects.
3.4.3.2 Tracking
Mostwetlandsrestorationrequiresapermitandshouldbetrackedthroughthepermittingprocessasacresorsquarefeetrestored.However,additionaltrackingisneededforprivatepropertyownerswhoagreetostopmowingwetlandsandallowthosewetlandstore‐establish.NGOsmayhavemoresuccessinconvincingpropertyownerstovoluntarilyadoptthisaction.LocalitiesshouldconsiderworkingwithNGOstopromote,trackandreportthereestablishmentofformerwetlands.
Currently,forestedandnon‐tidalwetlandsareidentifiedintheChesapeakeBaymodelasforestlands.HRPDChassuggestedthatthesewetlandsshouldbetracked,reported,andmodeledaswetlandsratherthanbeinggroupedundertheForestlandusecategory.Thisreportsupportsandreiteratestherecommendation.
3.5 Structural Stormwater Retrofit BMPs
TheVirginiastormwaterdesigncriteriaaregenerallyfollowedwhenconstructingBMPsassociatedwithnewdevelopment.Constructionofstormwaterretrofitsoftenrequiresdesignmodificationsbecauseofuniquesitecharacteristicsandconditions.Unlesstheretrofitsmeetstandarddesignspecifications,theestimatednutrientandsedimentreductionratesprovidedinTable3‐1andFigure3‐2mustbeadjustedforstormwaterretrofits.
AccordingtoSchueler,stormwaterretrofitsarea“diversegroupofprojectsthatprovidenutrientandsedimentreductiononexistingdevelopmentthatiscurrentlyuntreatedbyanyBMPorisinadequatelytreatedbyanexistingBMP”(CSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9,2011).ThesestormwaterretrofitsuseEPAapprovedandVirginiaacceptedstructuralpracticestocontrolandtreatstormwateronexistingproperties;however,uniquesitecharacteristicsandconstraints
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐25
oftennecessitatedesignmodifications.Asaresult,theassociatednutrientandsedimentremovalefficiencyratesoftheretrofitsmaybelessthantheEPAandVirginiaapprovedBMPs.
TheCBPUrbanStormwaterWorkgrouphasconvenedanexpertpaneltoreviewstormwaterretrofittreatmentratesandmethodstoestimatetreatmentratesforfivedifferentcategoriesofurbanstormwaterretrofitBMPsincluding:
1. Newretrofitfacilities;
2. BMPconversions;
3. BMPenhancements;
4. Greenstreetretrofits;and
5. On‐siteLIDretrofits.
ThepanelhasproducedadraftreportandanticipatesthatthereviewprocessandrecommendationsforurbanstormwaterretrofitBMPswillbecompletedandavailablein2012(Schueler,2011andpersonalcommunicationswithTomSchueler).BMPdescriptions,interimprotocolrecommendationstotrackBMPs,andmethodologiesforcalculatingnutrientandsedimentreductionratesfortheWIPsaresummarizedinAppendixH.Inaddition,recommendedsiting,design,installation,maintenance,andinspectionprotocolforurbanstormwaterretrofitscanbefoundinUrbanSubwatershedRestorationManual3–UrbanStormwaterRetrofitPractices(Schueleretal.,2007).SummaryfiguresandtablesforGreenStreetandon‐siteLIDretrofitsfromthatdocumentareprovidedinAppendixEandFigures3‐10through3‐13.
Newretrofitfacilities,BMPconversions,andBMPenhancementsaremoreappropriateforlargerproperties,publicrightofways,andupgradingexistingstormwatermanagementfacilitiesownedandmaintainedbyacommunityorcommercialpropertyowner.TheseretrofitswillnotbediscussedfurtherexcepttonotelocalitiesandNGOswhointendtoinstalltheseBMPswouldbenefitfromstakeholderinvolvementandsupportbecausethesetypesofBMPsaretypicallyinhighlyvisiblelocationsandcanrequirecapitalinvestments.
Mostoftheurbanstormwaterretrofitsappropriateforretrofittingneighborhoodsandindividualresidential,smallcommercial,andsmallinstitutionally‐ownedprivatepropertiesarecategorizedaseitherOn‐siteLIDorgreenstreetretrofits.Thesepracticesreduceimpervioussurfacesandcaptureorinfiltratestormwaterrunofffromimpervioussurfaceslikerooftops,driveways,andsmallparkinglots.Theon‐siteretrofitsalsoincludenon‐structuralpracticeslikesheetflowofstormwaterrunofftowoodedconservationareasorplantingbeds(vegetatedfilterstrips).Becausetheon‐siteLIDandgreenstreetretrofitsaremostappropriateforprivatepropertyowners,thisreportwillfocusonthesepractices.
Theamountofimpervioussurfacewithinawatershedhasasignificantimpactonthehealthofthewatershed.Researchshowsdeteriorationinwatershedswithincreasedimpervioussurfaces.Inaddition,thesuitabilityandfeasibilityofBMPsinurbanenvironmentsisdictatedbythepercentageofimpervioussurfacewithinasubwatershed(Schueler,2005).Asthepercentofimpervioussurfaceincreases,thechoiceofBMPsbecomesmorelimited(seeFigure3‐10).Therefore,reducingimpervioussurfacesortreatingstormwaterrunoffon‐sitewithBMPslikeOn‐SiteLIDandGreenStreetRetrofitsisaprimarystrategyadoptedbyMS4permittedlocalitiesandnon‐profitwatershedgroups.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐26 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Figure 3‐10: Feasibility of Retrofits Based on Impervious Cover (Schueler, 2005).
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐27
Figure 3‐11: BMP Retrofit Design Issues (Schueler et al., 2007).
Figure 3‐12: Common Locations for BMP Retrofits (Schueler et al., 2007).
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐28 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Figure 3‐13: Other Site Characteristics That Impact Retrofit Feasibility (Schueler et al., 2007).
3.5.1 On‐Site LID and Green Street Retrofits
On‐siteLIDretrofits“includestheinstallationofalargenumberofsmallon‐siteretrofits,suchasraingardens,compostamendments,rainbarrels,rooftopdisconnectionsandtreeplanting,overthescaleofaresidentialneighborhood.Theseretrofitsaretypicallydeliveredbylocalgovernmentsorwatershedgroups,whoprovideincentivesandsubsidiestoindividualpropertyownerstoimplementthem.Inmanycases,dozensorevenhundredsofthesesmallretrofitsmightbeinstalledinanygivensubwatershed”(CSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9,2011).On‐siteLIDretrofitscomprisethevastmajorityofBMPsthathavebeeninstalled,tracked,andreportedbylocalgovernmentsforMS4permitsandnon‐profitwatershedgroupsforgrantprojects.Table3‐3(seepage3‐33)providesalistofthetypesofon‐siteLIDretrofitscommonlypromoted,incentivizedandtrackedbylocalgovernment/NGO/privatepartnerships.
Greenstreetretrofits“utilizeacombinationofLIDpracticeswithinthepublicstreetrightofway,andaregainingpopularityasanattractiveoptiontotreatstormwaterrunoffinhighlyurbanwatersheds…Greenstreetstypicallyinvolveacombinationofpracticessuchaspermeablepavers,streetbioretention,expandedtreepits,individualstreettrees,imperviouscoverremoval,curbextensionsandfilteringpractices”(CSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9,2011).ThegreenstreetBMPapproachinstallspracticeswithinthepublicright‐of‐way,butcanbeutilizedinaresidentialsettingtoaddcommunitycharacter,providetrafficcalmingmeasures,orincorporatepedestrianaccess.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐29
Althoughprojectsareonpublicproperty,localitiescanoftengetsupportandbuy‐inofcommunitymembersbecauseofthecommunitybenefitsassociatedwithgreenstreetretrofits.Inaddition,engagedcommunitymembersmayberecruitedtomaintainplantmaterialand/orbioretentionfeaturesinfrontoftheirpropertyorwithintheircommunity.Greenstreetretrofitsmaybeaneffectivestrategyparticularlyinultra‐urbanareas.
3.5.1.1 Issues to Consider
CWPhasidentifiedthemostcommonlocationsforon‐siteLIDandgreenstreetretrofits(Figures3‐11through3‐13).Table3‐4,adaptedfromaMid‐AtlanticWaterProgramwebcastonLIDmaintenance,comparesLIDmaintenanceconcernsversusconventionalBMPmaintenance.
OnestakeholderinterviewednotedthatFairfaxCountydiscoveredthattheCountycouldnotfundorinstallraingardensonprivatepropertybecausetheuseoftaxdollarsto“improve”selectpropertieswasaninequitableuseoftaxdollars.Torectifythis,theCountyturnedtheeffortovertotheNorthernVirginiaSWCD.ArlingtonCounty,awareoftheFairfaxCountyexperience,vettedtheirprogramthroughthelegaldepartmentfirstandarrangedforACE(anon‐profit)todistributerebates.Additionalresearchiswarrantedtodetermineifthisissuewouldbeabarrierinotherlocalities.
Becausetherearetypicallysuchalargenumberofon‐siteLIDretrofitsinstalledwithinasubwatershed,SchuelerhasproposedasimplifiedmethodofanalysiswhichusesthecumulativeareaofimperviouscovertreatedbytheBMPsandanaverageoftherainfalldepthcapturedtoestimatethetotalnutrientandsedimentreductionforallon‐siteLIDretrofitscombinedwithinasubwatershed(CSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9,2011).SeeAppendixHforamoredetailedexplanationofthismethod.
Table3‐4:IssuesAssociatedwithLIDversusConventionalBMPs(SchuelerandScott8/11/11).
TheChangingMaintenanceParadigm
ConventionalPractices LIDPracticeExampleofPractice Pond Disconnects/raingardenNumberofpractices? Afewateachsite DozensSizeofpractices? Largedrainagearea Micro‐drainageareaWhentoconstruct? Duringsiteconstruction AftersiteisstabilizedWhoisresponsible? Homeownerassociation HomeownerWhodoesinspection? Publicsectorengineer TrainedcontractorWhodoesmaintenance Specializedcontractor LandscapecontractorHowlongdoesittake? Hourormore 10minutesWhatisthegoal? Preventdamfailureand andpublic
nuisancesMaintainhydrologicfunctionandlandscaping
Sedimentcleanouts? Ona30to50yearcycle(ifever) Annualcleanoutsatpretreatmentdevices
MaintenanceTriggers Aftercatastrophicfailure Visualinspection/appearance
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐30 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
3.5.1.2 Tracking
SchuelersuggeststhatlocalitiesshouldmaintainaprojectfileforeachLIDprojectinstalledthatincludesthefollowing(CSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9,2011):
AsitemapwiththeLIDlocation(s);
Contactinformationforpartyresponsibleformaintenance;
DesigninformationforlargerLIDpractices;
Maintenanceandinspectionreports;
Digitalphotos;and
Recordofnutrientandsedimentreductioncreditsandmethodusedtocomputethecredits.
Thefileshouldbemaintainedforthelifeofnutrientreductioncredits(approximately25years).Inaddition,pertinentLIDinformationshouldbestoredinaGIS‐basedBMPtrackingsystemincludingtheLID/propertylocationbyGPScoordinates,theassociated12digitwatershedcode,typeofLID,thecreditsclaimed,andmethodusedtocomputethecredits.OncethevegetationisestablishedandtheinspectorconfirmstheLIDpracticeisfunctioningasdesigned,theBMPsshouldbevisuallyinspectedatleastonceevery5years.Schuelersuggeststhatmaintenanceagreementsshould(SchuelerandScott,webcastAugust11,2011):
Identifyspecificpartiesresponsibleformaintenance;
Identifylandscapecontractororotherpartytoperformmaintenance;
Requireannualself‐inspection;
Referencethespecificannualmaintenancetasksthatmustbeperformed;
ProvideLIDlocatormaptofindpractices;and
ProvidephotosoftheestablishedLIDpractices
ExistingmodelprogramsmaintaindatabasestotrackBMPinstallation.AlinktoAnneArundelCounty’sGISreportingsystemisprovidedintheReferencesectionunderAnneArundelCounty.BothArlingtonCountyandMontgomeryCountystaffuseiPadstocollectinformationduringsitevisitsandfacilitatedataentryintotheirdatabase/GISsystem.Inaddition,MontgomeryCountystaffhavebeguntoexploretheuseofstormwatersmartphone/iPadapplicationstofacilitatesiteanalysis(personalcommunicationwithChristinJolicoeurandAnnEnglish,April16,2012).TheCityofVirginiaBeachiscurrentlyworkingwithLynnhavenRiverNowtodevelopatrackingandreportingsystemthatotherHamptonRoadslocalitiesmayuseasamodel.StaffordCountyDepartmentofCodeAdministrationalsohasaStormwaterBMPMasterDatabase/GISthatotherlocalitiesmaybeabletouseasanexample.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 3‐31
3.6 Onsite Sewage BMPs
NitrogendeliveredtotheChesapeakeBaywatershedfromonsitesewagesystems,includingsepticsystems,isattributedtotheurbansectorintheTMDL.Iflocalitieswanttoreducenitrogendeliveredbytheseprivatesystems,thentheycancreateprogramsandincentivesincooperationwiththeHealthDepartment.
3.6.1 Septic Connections
SepticconnectionsorhookupstoexistingsanitarysewersystemsisasystemchangeBMP.AsmanylocalitiesinHamptonRoadshavebecomemoreurbanized,someresidentialpropertyownerswithsepticsystemshavenotandmaynotwanttotieintothesanitarysewersystem.
Costtothepropertyownerintheformofusagefeesisonepotentialbarriertogettingthesepropertyownerstogo“on‐line”.However,assepticsystemsfail,iflocalitiescanprovidethepropertyownerswithalifecyclecost‐benefitanalysiscomparingthecostofinstallinganewsystemtotheaveragelongtermcostoffees,somepropertyownersmayagreetohookup.
3.6.2 Septic Pumping
Inlocalitiesthatarestilltransitioningfromruraltosuburbanandurban,therearestillanumberofprivatepropertiesthatareonsepticsystems.“Tidewater”localitieswithintheChesapeakeBayResourceManagementAreasrequireprivatepropertyownerstopumpouttheirseptictankseveryfiveyears.
3.6.2.1 Issues to Consider
Severalstakeholdersinterviewednotedthatenforcement,trackingandreportingforthemandatorypumpoutsissporadicandvariesfromlocalitytolocality.Targetedoutreach,communication,andengagementofprivatepropertyownerswithsepticsystems,includingandongoingreminders,maymotivatecitizenstopump‐outtheirsystemseveryfiveyears.However,localitiesmayhavetoenactpenaltiesforcitizensthatdonotcomplyinordertoincreasecompliance.NGOsandtrainedenvironmentalstewardsmaybevaluablepartnersthatcanprovidethetargetedoutreach,communication,andengagementfunctionsfortheseefforts.
3.6.2.2 Tracking
Asmentionedpreviously,somelocalitiesarenotifyingcitizensoftheneedtopumpoutsepticsystemseveryfiveyearsandsubmitproofofthepumpout,however,itisunclearwhetherornottheselocalitiestrackorenforcethepumpouts.Iflocalitieshavenotalreadydoneso,theyshoulddevelopatrackingandreportingsystemforsepticpump‐outsandmaintainpump‐outcertificationrecords.
3.6.3 Septic Denitrification
ThisBMPrequiresprivatepropertyownerstoupgradetheirexistingsepticsystemstomoreefficientsepticsystems.OnebarriertosuccessforthisBMPisthecostassociatedwithsystemreplacementwhenoldsystemsarestillfunctioningasdesigned.NewVirginiaDepartmentofHealthregulationsrequiresystemstoachievea50%reductioninTotalNitrogen(comparedtoconventionalgravitysystems)fromalternativeon‐sitesepticsystems(AOSS)installedafter
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐32 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
December7,2013(12VAC5‐613‐90D).Ifthesesystemsreplaceexistingsepticsystems,itmaybepossibleforassociatednutrientreductionstobecreditedtowardlocalgovernmenttargets.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives | 3‐33
Table3‐3:
BMPsUsedbyModelProgram
s
BMPNAME
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
RAINSCAPES
RICHMOND
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY
WASHINGTON,
DC
RIVERHOMES
NORTH
CAROLINACCAP
Bioretention‐facilities
aresimilartoraingardens,
buttheyrelyonstructural
componentssuchas
underdrainsand
connectionsto
downstreamstormdrain
system
stodrainthe
facility.
Bioretention
BioretentionArea
Raingardens‐are
shallowgardensdesigned
tocaptureandsoakup
stormwater
RainGarden
RainGarden
RainGarden
RainGarden
RainGarden
Backyardrain
garden
Conservation
Landscaping‐
landscapingusesnative
plantsthatareadaptedto
localrainfallandsoil
conditionstoreplacepart
ofyourtraditionallaw
n
Conservation
Landscaping
Conservation
Landscapes–
conversionof
lawnsandnon‐
nativeinvasives
tonativeplants,
minimum
of150
sq.ft.
BayScaping;120
squarefeet
minimum
ofturf,
grass,orlawn
mustbereplaced
withnative
plants
Conservationlandscape
‐couldeitherbeinthe
riparianbufferoroutside
andthelandisperpetually
dedicatedforconservation
purposes.Mustspecifyif
theplantingiswithinthe
riparianbufferorwhether
itisinsideoroutsidethe
criticalarea.
Conservation
landscape
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐34 | Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives
Table3‐3:
BMPsUsedbyModelProgram
s(continued)
BMPNAME
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
RAINSCAPES
RICHMOND
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY
WASHINGTON,
DC
RIVERHOMES
NORTH
CAROLINACCAP
Dow
nspout
Disconnection‐direct
waterfrom
your
downspoutstoanareaon
yourpropertywherethe
watercaninfiltrate
Dow
nspout
Disconnection
(ReedyCreek
Coalition)
Prom
otedbutno
rebate
VegetatedFilterStrips–
uniformstripsofdense
turf,m
eadowgrasses,
treesorothervegetation
withaminimum
slopeand
cantreatrunofffromroof
downspouts
VegetatedFilter
Strip
TreeCanopy–created
whentreesplantednear
eachothercreatean
“umbrella”orcanopyof
leafcoverthatshadesthe
ground.Treeleaves
interceptrainfallandtheir
rootsabsorbit.
Atreecanopy
TreePlanting‐
Theminimum
areafor
reforestationis
7500squarefeet.
(ReedyCreek
Coalition)
TreeCanopyFund
–gearedtowards
largeplantingsof
treesina
community,also
freenativetree
giveaw
ayto
individual
homeowners.
ShadeTree
Planting‐
specifictrees
PermeablePavers‐
Replacingthehard,
impermeablesurfaceson
yourpropertywith
materialssuchas
permeablepaversallows
rainwatertosoakintothe
ground.Thisreducesthe
amountofrunoffthat
leavestheproperty
Permeable
Pavers
PerviousPavers
orConcrete–can
includeremoval
ofim
pervious
surfaces
Minimum
of150
sq.ft.
PerviousPavers‐
Walkw
aysand
smallpatiosare
noteligible.
ImperviousSurface
Conversionto
Permeable
Pavementor
Vegetation
Establishm
ent
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives | 3‐35
Table3‐3:
BMPsUsedbyModelProgram
s(continued)
BMPNAME
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
RAINSCAPES
RICHMOND
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY
WASHINGTON,
DC
RIVERHOMES
NORTH
CAROLINACCAP
PerviousPavem
ent‐
concreteblocks,grid
pavers,orpervious
concreteorasphaltw
itha
stonereservoir
underneath.Thereservoir
temporarilystoressurface
runoffbeforeinfiltratingit
intothesoilbelow
Pervious
Pavement
Permeable
Pavement‐must
becom
binedwith
impervioussurface
removal.
PermeableSurface‐
includedescriptionoftype
ofpermeablesurfaceused,
thelocation,andthe
coveragearea
Permeable
Surface
GreenRoof‐arecovered
withawaterproof
mem
braneandthen
plantedwithaspecial
vegetationsystemto
absorbrainfall.
Greenroofs
Greenroof
Greenroofs
RainBarrelsand
Cisterns‐collectand
storerainwaterfrom
your
roofs.
Rainbarrels
andcisterns
Onsite
Stormwater
Storageincludes
rainbarrels,
cisterns,orother
stormwater
storagedevices
approvedbythe
Dept.ofPublic
Utilities
Cisternsfor
rebate,rain
barrels–build
yourown
workshopfor$55
RainBarrels
RainBarrels
Cistern
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐36 | Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives
Table3‐3:
BMPsUsedbyModelProgram
s(continued)
BMPNAME
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
RAINSCAPES
RICHMOND
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY
WASHINGTON,
DC
RIVERHOMES
NORTH
CAROLINACCAP
DryWells‐wellisan
undergroundgravel‐filled
pitthatcollects
stormwaterfrom
roof
downspoutsorhard
surfaces,suchas
drivew
aysandfiltersthe
waterthroughtheground.
Adrywell
Infiltration
TrenchesandDry
Wells
WetlandRestoration‐
Includeworktorestorea
historicwetlandsor
constructinganew
wetland.
Wetland
Restoration
BackyardWetland
orStormwater
Wetland?
UplandTreePlanting
Treeplanting
outsidethe
CriticalArea
CriticalAreaPlanting
RiparianBuffer
Plantingis
plantingwithin
the300ft.stream
buffer(Critical
Area)
Establisha
perennial
vegetativecoveron
landthatcannotbe
stabilizedby
ordinary
conservation
treatment.
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives | 3‐37
Table3‐3:
BMPsUsedbyModelProgram
s(continued)
BMPNAME
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
RAINSCAPES
RICHMOND
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY
WASHINGTON,
DC
RIVERHOMES
NORTH
CAROLINACCAP
RiparianBufferPlanting
‐areusedtorestorenative
plantsalonga
stream
.Treeandshrub
specieschosenwillgrow
tovariousheightscreating
multiplelayersofcanopy
atmaturity.Thisisvery
effectiveatreducing
runoff,protectingstream
banksfrom
erosionand
willprovidehabitatfor
wildlife.Some
maintenanceisrequired
duringthefirsttw
oyears
afterplanting
RiparianForest
BufferPlantings
(ReedyCreek
Coalition)
RiparianBuffer
Plantingoutside
theCriticalArea
Areaadjacentto
solidblue‐line
stream
sasshown
on7.5minuteUSGS
mapswerea
perm
anent,long‐
livedvegetative
cover(shrubs,
treesor
combinationof
vegetationtypes)is
establishedto
improvewater
quality.Mustbea
minimum
of15
feetwideand
nativeplants.
LivingShoreline
Includeall
soft/natural
shoreline
techniques
Stream
bankand
shorelineprotection‐
Useofvegetationto
stabilizeandprotectbanks
ofstreams,lakes,estuaries
orexcavatedchannels
againstscouranderosion.
Stream
bankand
shoreline
protection
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐38 | Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives
Table3‐3:
BMPsUsedbyModelProgram
s(continued)
BMPNAME
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
RAINSCAPES
RICHMOND
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY
WASHINGTON,
DC
RIVERHOMES
NORTH
CAROLINACCAP
Stream
Restoration
System
‐Useof
bioengineeringpractices,
nativematerial
revetments,channel
stabilitystructuresand/or
restorationor
managem
entofriparian
corridors.
Stream
Restoration
System
SepticSystem
Retrofits
numberofseptic
system
sretrofittedper
address
OysterPlanting‐tracked
enteredperoyster
plantinglocationand
includeslocation,typeof
plantinglocationandshall
includelocation
information,sizeof
plantingbed,typeof
plantingbed,num
berof
spats,andotherdetails
OysterPlanting
BayGrasses(SAV)‐
explanationoflocation,
typeandcoveragearea
(sq.ft.)ofgrassesplanted.
BayGrasses(SAV)
Stream
Dumpsite
Cleanup‐extentof
cleanupandtonsoftrash
andtypesoftrash
removed
Stream
Dum
psite
Cleanup
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives | 3‐39
Table3‐3:
BMPsUsedbyModelProgram
s(continued)
BMPNAME
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
RAINSCAPES
RICHMOND
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY
WASHINGTON,
DC
RIVERHOMES
NORTH
CAROLINACCAP
UplandDumpsite
Cleanup‐extentof
cleanupandtonsoftrash
andtypesoftrash
removed
UplandDum
psite
Cleanup
PetWasteReceptacle
PetW
aste
Receptacle
PetW
aste
Receptacle
Education/Outreach
Education/Outrea
ch
Diversion‐achannel
constructedacrossaslope
withasupportingridgeon
thelowersidetocontrol
drainagebydiverting
excesswaterfrom
anarea
toim
provewaterquality.
Diversion
GrassedSwale‐natural
orconstructedchannel
thatisshapedorgradedto
requireddimensionsand
establishedinsuitable
vegetationforthestable
conveyanceofrunoffto
improvewaterquality
GrassedSwale
Section 3 – Appropriate BMPs
3‐40 | Red
ucing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Program
s, Practices and Incentives
Table3‐3:
BMPsUsedbyModelProgram
s(continued)
BMPNAME
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
RAINSCAPES
RICHMOND
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY
WASHINGTON,
DC
RIVERHOMES
NORTH
CAROLINACCAP
StormwaterWetlands
Stormwater
wetlandsare
constructed
system
sthatmimic
thefunctionsof
naturalw
etlands
andaredesignedto
mitigatethe
impactsof
urbanizationon
stormwaterquality
andquantity.
Designedtotreat
impervioussurface
areagreaterthan
2500sq.ft.
BackyardWetland
Backyardwetlands
areconstructed
system
sthatmimic
thefunctionsof
naturalw
etlandsA
backyardwetland
cantemporarily
store,filterand
cleanrunofffrom
drivew
ays,roofs
andlawnsand
therebyimprove
waterquality.The
wetlandrem
ains
saturatedfortwo
tothreeweeks.
Section 4 ‐ Issues That Impact Feasibility
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 4‐1
4 ISSUES THAT IMPACT FEASIBILITY
Anobjectiveofthisinvestigationwastointerviewstakeholdersfromagriculture,development,andlocalgovernmentsectorstoidentifyadvantages,disadvantages,obstacles,andunresolvedissuesthatimpactthefeasibilityofachievingnutrientreductionsonprivateproperty.Inordertoaccomplishthistask,WetlandsWatchparticipatedinwebcasts,conductedaliteraturesearch,andinterviewedprogramcoordinatorsandotherlocalstakeholders.Thegoalofthisworkwastoidentifychallengesandbarriersassociatedwithlocalgovernment’sabilitytoincreasetheuseofBMPsonprivatepropertyasnutrientandsedimentreductionstrategiesforMS4andWIPprograms.
ManyofthechallengesassociatedwithindividualBMPsarediscussedinSection3,AppropriateBMPs.However,additionalchallengesrevolvearoundstakeholderandgovernmentalplanning,implementation,andcoordination.Overalltherearetwosetsofchallengestothisstrategy.Onesetofchallengesresideswiththeprivatelandowners(andorganizationsworkingwiththem)andonesetresideswithlocal,state,andfederalgovernments.
Theprivatelandownerchallengesinclude:
Properly‐targetedcommunicationandoutreachtoprivatelandowners;
Availabilityoftechnicalexpertiseandguidance;
Availabilityofplantsandothermaterials;
Properlyfocusedincentivesandrewards;
Personalpreferences,knowledge,capabilities,andinterestoftargetedpropertyowners;
Covenantsandrestrictionswithinneighborhoodsandcommunities;
Costandfinancialresourcesoftargetedpropertyowners;and
Easeofimplementation.
Thelocalgovernmentchallengesinclude:
Conflictsandcompliancewithexistingland‐usepolicies,codesandordinances,otherdepartmentalandregulatoryprograms,andstandardpractices;
Efficacy‐ensuringpracticesareproperlydesignedandinstalledtoachieveexpectedrunoffandnutrient/sedimentreductions;
Accountability‐ensuringpracticesinstalledareidentified,tracked,andperformingovertime;
Achievingcredits‐ensuringthatpracticesarestate‐andEPA‐approvedpracticessothattheycanbe“counted”inMS4andChesapeakeBayTMDL‐relatedprograms;and
Funding.
4.1 Planning
DuringtheplanningphaseofaBMPproject,themostsignificantchallengesforprivatelandownersaredevelopingaprojectthatmeetstechnicalrequirementsandpersonalpreferencesandnavigatingthepermitandapprovalprocess.Themostsignificantchallengefor
Section 4 – Issues That Impact Feasibility
4‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
localgovernmentsishowtomaketheprojectdevelopmentandapprovalprocesseasierforprivatelandownersandstillensurecompliancewithallrequirements.Basedonexistingprograms,developmentofwatershedrestorationplanshelpsboththelandownerandlocalgovernmentswithprojectplanning.Aprogramdevelopedaroundawatershedrestorationplanorothercomprehensiveplanningtoolslikeblue/greeninfrastructureplansprovidelocalitiesandallstakeholderswithaframework,guidance,andvision.ProgramsthatwerenotdevelopedaroundalocalwatershedrestorationplanhaveoftenresultedinpoorlydesignedandimplementedBMPretrofitdemonstrationprojectsthatdonotprovidelong‐termwaterqualitybenefits.
Thefollowingresourcesdocumentmethodologiesfordevelopingwatershedrestorationplans:
EPA’sNationalManagementMeasurestoControlNonpointSourcePollutionfromUrbanAreas(November2005,EPA‐841‐B‐05‐004),
CWP’sUrbanWatershedRestorationManualSeries,
CWP’sSmartWatershedBenchmarkingTool(RoweandSchueler,2008),and/or
DCR’sLocalWatershedManagementPlanninginVirginia,ACommunityWaterQualityApproach”
Allofthesedocumentsrecommendthatplanningorganizationsworktogetherwithinterestedstakeholdersincludinggovernmentagencies,NGOs,privateandpublicinstitutions,thedevelopmentandrealestatecommunity(andotherprivatesectorentities),civicorganizations,andcommunityleaderstoidentifyoverlappinginterests,developimplementationstrategiesthatprovidemultiplebenefits,buildawarenessofissues,andreflectcommunity‐specificideasandneeds.Theplanshouldbepromotedandreadilyaccessibletoallcitizensandcanbeusedtogainsupportforlocalgovernmentactionsandpolicies.
StakeholdersinterviewedforthisreportvoicedconcernsregardingthelackofcommunicationandcoordinationwithmandatedprogramsattheFederalandStatelevelsandacultureof“separation”atalllevelsofgovernment.ThefeasibilityofincreasingBMPsonprivatepropertytoachievenutrientandsedimentreductioncreditscaninvolveplanning,capitalimprovements,codechanges,permittingandcoordinationwithmultipleagencies.Inter‐departmentalcommunicationandcollaborationisneeded,butisoftenmissing.Complicatedandcostlypermittingandapprovalprocessescanbeadeterrenttoprivatepropertyownerswhowishtoadoptnewpracticesontheirproperty;whereas,accesstotechnicalexpertiseandguidancethroughthepermittingandapprovalprocesscanbeanincentive.
4.2 Implementation
ProgrammaticissuesthatcanimpactthesuccessfulimplementationofaBMPprojectonprivatepropertyinclude:
Organizationalcapacity(fundingandstaff);
Managementandcoordinationofpartners;
Partnerskillsandknowledge;
Relationshipsandattitudesbetweenstakeholders;and
Attitudes,knowledge,andresourcesoftargetedprivatepropertyowners.
Section 4 ‐ Issues That Impact Feasibility
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 4‐3
Intheimplementationphase,challengesforprivatepropertyownersinclude:
NeedforinformationortechnicalassistancetobuildBMPs;
Willingnesstoadoptandpayforthesenewpractices,
Willingnesstoassumeresponsibilityforlongandshort‐termmaintenance;and
WillingnesstoshareinformationaboutthedesignandmaintenanceoftheBMPwiththelocalgovernment.
Inaddition,somepropertyownersmayhavetocomplywithneighborhoodandcommunitycovenantsand/orrestrictionsthatconflictwithwater‐friendlypractices.
CSN’sTechnicalBulletinNo.9(Schueler,2011)identifiesanumberofimplementationchallengesfromthelocalgovernmentperspectiveassociatedwitheffortstoincreaseBMPsonprivateproperty:
Everyretrofitprojectisuniquetosomedegree,dependingonthedrainagearea,thetreatmentmechanism(s)employed,therunoffvolumecaptured,andthedegreeofpriorstormwatertreatmentatthesite,ifany.
Manyretrofitsareunder‐sized,duetositeconstraints,incomparisontonewBMPsdesignedtonewdevelopmentstandards.Someadjustmentinpollutantremovalcapabilityisneededtoaccountforsituationswhereretrofitscannotmeetthevolumeandtreatmentrequirementsofnewstandards.
Thereisvirtuallynoresearchavailablespecificallyforefficienciesofstormwaterretrofits,soremovalratesneedstobeinferredfromotherknownBMPandrunoffreductionperformancedata.
ManyretrofitsemployinnovativecombinationsofrunofftreatmentmechanismsandmaynotbeeasilyclassifiedaccordingtotheexistingCBP‐approvedBMPefficiencies.
Localitiesoftenevaluatedozensorevenhundredsofcandidateprojectsduringretrofitinvestigationstofindthebestones.Therefore,localitieswillneedfairlysimpleprotocolstoestimatepollutantreductionachievedbyindividualretrofitsprojectsaspartoftheirwatershedassessmentandretrofitinvestigation.
AllofthesefactorscauseconcernwithlocalitiesabouttheircapacitytohandleaprogramtoincreasethenumberofBMPsonprivateproperty.Localgovernmentconcernsinclude:
Howwilllocalgovernmentagenciesaccommodateandfundthenewlevelofeffortandcostsassociatedwithaprogramthatpromotesandtrackspotentially“hundreds”ofBMPsonprivateproperty?
Whowilldotheworkandwhatskillswillbeneededforthesiteassessment,design,installation,inspection,maintenance,andtrackingofnewBMPs?
Whowillprovideeducation,engagement,andtargetedrecruitmentofprivatepropertyowners?
Whatincentivesshouldbeoffered,willtheybeeffective,howshouldtheybedelivered,howshouldtheybefunded?
WhattypeofBMPdatashouldbetrackedandwithwhatformat?
Section 4 – Issues That Impact Feasibility
4‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Programsofferedasmodelprogramsinthisdocumenthaveevolvedanddevelopedinanefforttoovercometheobstaclesencounteredwithintheirownprogramsandbyothers.NFWFgranteesmeetonanannualbasistoreviewfundedprograms,identifyobstaclesandsuccesses,andshareinformationwithothergrantrecipients.TomSchuelerofCSNattendsthesemeetingsandincludesthese“lessonslearned”intechnicalbulletins,webcasts,andguidancedocuments,manyofwhichhavebeenreferencedinthisdocument.
4.2.1 Collaboration and Partnerships
Pastexperiences,personalattitudes,andtrustinfluencecitizens’willingnesstousenewwater‐friendlypractices,participateinincentiveprograms,andallowaccessontotheirproperty.Somepropertyownershavedeclinedtoparticipateinincentiveprogramsbecausetheywereunwillingtoallowaninspectionoftheproperty.NGOstakeholdershavenotedthatsomepropertyownersdonotwantregulatorystaffintheirbackyardandmaybeunwillingtoreportvoluntarypracticesinstalledontheirproperty.NGOshavebeenabletoeasehomeownersconcernsandhelptobuildrelationshipswithlocalenvironmentalstaff.NGOsspendalotoftimebuildingasenseoftrustamongcitizensandbusinessowners,andtheyoftenrelyonacommunityleadertogainthatneededtrustwithinacommunity.Inaddition,manyoftheBMPssuitableforprivatepropertytendtobelandscaping‐typeactions.Sincelandscapeandlawn‐careprofessionalsandsuppliers(nurseriesandgardencenters)oftenaretrustedadvisors,theyhaveasignificantinfluenceonprivatepropertyownerdecisionsregardingBMPdesign,installation,andmaintenance.Overcomingthechallengesinvolvedingainingaccesstoprivateproperty,buildingtrust,andeducatingandconvincingprivatepropertyownerstoadoptnewwater‐friendlylandscape‐typepracticesisfeasiblethroughcreativepartnershipswithNGOsandtheprivatesector.
ProgramsthatinvolvepartnershipsbetweenNGOs,localgovernments,andprivatecontractorsseemtobethemosteffective.Localwatershedgroupstaffandtrainedenvironmentalstewardswhofocusonpromotingvoluntarywater‐friendlypracticesarecomprisedoftrustedcommunityleadersthathaveestablishedgoodrelationshipswithlocalpropertyowners,businesses,andcommunitygroups.Stormwatermanagementandotherregulatorystaffmaybetechnicallyproficient,butlacktheoutreach,education,communication,andengagementskills.TheNGOentitycanreachprivatelandownersinwaysthatgovernmentalentitiescannot,whilethegovernmentalinvolvementaddselementsofplanning,technicalexpertise,andprogrammaticrigorneededtotakefullcreditforthesepractices.NGOs,trainedenvironmentalstewards,andprofessionallandscapecontractorsalsoenablelocalgovernmenttoexpandtheirprogramdeliverywithouthiringmorestaff.ForNGOs,partnershipswithlocalgovernmentcanbeessentialifthereareconflictswithexistingpublicpolicy,codesandordinances.
Successfulmodelstypicallyinvolvelocalandstateleaderswhounderstandthevalueofintegratingprogramsthroughacollaborativeplanningprocess.TheGreenRibbonCommitteeandWaterQualityTaskForceinVirginiaBeachandtheLafayetteRiverRestorationeffortinNorfolkareexamplesofcollaborativeplanningeffortsthatincludeinter‐departmentalrepresentativesoflocalgovernmentsaswellasNGOs.TheNativePlantsMarketingGroup,organizedbytheVirginiaCZM,isanexampleofastate‐levelcollaborativeeffortthatincludesmultiplestateagenciesandNGOs.
MontgomeryCountyRainscapesisanexampleinwhichtheCountyrecognizedthepotentialbenefitsoflocalwatershedgroupsandhelpeddevelopthem.Alackofqualifiedlandscapeprofessionalsandinsufficientcapacityoflocalwatershedgroupstoprovideneededservices
Section 4 ‐ Issues That Impact Feasibility
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 4‐5
motivatedtheCountytodevelopandofferprofessionaltrainingprogramsandpartnerwiththeNCRWSA.Withtheseefforts,MontgomeryCountywasableto:
Expandtheirprogramwithoutasignificantincreaseincosts;
Increasetheiroutreach,educationandengagementeffortstoprivatecitizens;
MaintainsomecontroloverthequalityofBMPdesign,installation,andmaintenance;
Assistwithtrackingandreporting;and
Focusstafftimeonplanning,regulatorycompliance,inspections,andtrackingandreporting.
Sometimesenvironmentaladvocatesandlocalgovernmentstaffhaveadversarialrelationshipsassociatedwithland‐usedecisionsandregulatoryenforcementthatgetinthewayofaworkingpartnership.Inordertocollaborate,watershedgroupsandlocalgovernmentstaffmustovercomeanydistrustfrompastexperiences.
4.2.2 Funding and Incentives
Fundingfortheincreasingcostsofstormwatermanagementcontinuestobeanissueforalllocalities.MostPhaseIMS4permittedlocalitiescollectastormwaterutilityfeeortaxesthatpartiallyfundprograms.ArlingtonCounty,FairfaxCounty,andtheCityofAlexandria(beginningin2012)collectastormwatertaxtofundthestormwatermanagementprogram.PrinceWilliamCounty,andtheCitiesofManassas,Richmond,Chesapeake,NewportNews,Norfolk,Hampton,Portsmouth,Suffolk,andVirginiaBeachallcollectastormwaterutilityfeewhichisbasedontheamountofimpervioussurfaceareaofaproperty(Berger,2011).AdiscussiononthemeritsandgoverningstatutesisprovidedinTheChesapeakeBayTMDL:ManagingOurWaterResources–WhereWaterQualityandWaterQuantityCollide(BulovaandWortzel,2011).
ThemajorityofotherVirginialocalitiestendtorelyon“generalfundappropriations(largelygeneratedthroughrealestatetaxes)incombinationwithlimitedpermitfees”fortheirstormwatermanagementplans.Theseprogramsmustcompetewithothercapitalimprovementprogramsand,asaresult,aretypicallyunderfunded(BulovaandWortzel,2011).Allmodelprogramsidentifiedhavereceivedgrants,primarilyfromNFWF,EPA,theVirginiaDCRWaterQualityImplementationFund(WQIF)andVirginiaDEQ,topartiallyfundtheirprograms.
Thesustainabilityofallmodelprogramsisacriticalchallenge.InVirginia,from2006to2012,theNationalFishandWildlifeFund(NFWF)grantedalmost$18milliondollarstoNGO,SoilandWaterConservationDistrict,andUniversityResearchprograms.TheChesapeakeBayTrustprovidedanadditional$400,000ingrantmoneytoNGOsandVIMSprimarilyforlivingshorelineprojects.However,thesegrantfundswereonlyavailableforadiscreteperiodoftime,typicallynotrenewed,andthereforearenotasustainablefundingsource.NFWFfundsonetothreeyearexperimentalor“ground‐breaking”projectsandprograms.TheChesapeakeBayFundersNetworkinrecentgrantcycleshasestablishedan“organizationbuilding”grantforwatershedgroupsthatcouldbeavailabletostrengthenexistingsmallerwatershedgroupsintheHamptonRoadsregion.VirginiaDCRcontinuestoprovidefundingtolocalitiesandNGOsthroughtheWQIFgrantfund.
InvestigationeffortsforthisreportidentifiedseveraltypesofincentiveprogramsdesignedtoengagecitizensandincreasethenumberofBMPsonprivateproperty.Thetypesofincentivesofferedtoprivatepropertyownersincludefinancialincentives,assistanceprograms,
Section 4 – Issues That Impact Feasibility
4‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
recognition/awards,anddo‐it‐yourselfworkshopslike“buildyourownrainbarrel”or“howtodesignaraingarden.”Thefinancialincentivesofferedbythelocalitiesincludecost‐sharing/rebates,stormwaterutilityfeecredits,andtaxcredits.
Financialincentiveprogramsenablelocalitiestoeducateprivatepropertyowners,approvedesigns,conductaninspection,obtainawrittenmaintenanceagreement,andtrackBMPsinstalledonprivateproperty.Somelocalitieshavenotedthatacost‐sharerequirementhasresultedinbettermaintenancefromtheprivatepropertyowner.SomelocalitiesrequirepropertyownerstoconfirmthatBMPsarestillfunctioningafteracertainperiodoftimeinordertocontinuetoreceiveastormwaterutilitycredit.BothArlingtonCountyandMontgomeryCountyprogrammanagersnotedthateducatedandengagedcitizenswhounderstandtheimportanceofwatershedrestorationandstormwatermanagementprogramsalsoprovidepoliticalandfiscalprogramsupport.
Severallocalitieshavereportedthatrebateandtaxcreditapplicationproceduresandrequirementsarediscouragingtoprivatepropertyownerswhowanttoparticipateintheseincentiveprograms.ComplicatedpermittingprocessesandtheneedforprofessionalcertificationofprojectsareperceivedasbarriersandraisethecostsassociatedwithBMPdesignandinstallation.Consequently,thetaxcreditorrebateisnotworththeeffort.Inaddition,managersofpublicutilitiesthatfundtaxcreditsandrebatesmaynotfullypromoteandsupporttheseprogramsbecausecreditsandrebatesarerevenuelosses.
Alternativeincentivesincludefreeorsubsidizedtechnicalassistanceandservicesthatfacilitateorprovidesiteanalyses;recommendstrategiesandactions;negotiatepermitprocesses;provideprojectoversight;anddesignormaintainBMPs.InMontgomeryCounty,theRainscapesprogrammanagerreportedthattheprogramhasfacilitatedrelationshipbuildingbetweenstaffandcitizensandthosecitizenshavevoicedgratitudeforthetechnicalreviewprovidedbythemanager.MontgomeryCountyalsonotedthattheCountyhastrainedandworkedwithNGOs,privatelandscapingcontractors,suppliers,andtrainedenvironmentalstewardstoensurethatallarecapablepartnersthatcanprovidetechnicalassistanceandservicestoprivatepropertyowners.Afterprovidingalocalnurserywithalistofapprovedtreesandinformingthemaboutatreeplantingincentiveprogram,thenurserybeganinformingcitizensabouttheprogram.Subsequently,treeplantingsincreasedsignificantly.
Severalprograms(likePearlHomesandRiverStarHomes)havedevelopedsmallsignsorfrontyardflagsthatrecognizetheBMPsandthecommitmentofprivatepropertyowners.Otherlocalitiesandnon‐profitshaverecognitionawardceremoniesandpromotethesuccessesinthemediaandonwebsites.TheElizabethRiverProject’sRiverStarBusinessesProgramhasanannualawardsceremonytorecognizeexemplarybusinessparticipants.Manyoftheserecognitionprogramspromote(andsomerequire)BMPslikeUrbanNutrientManagementonresidentialproperty.IflocalitiescouldfindawaytocollaboratewithNGOsandtrackwillingparticipantsoftheprogram,theserecognitionprogramsrepresentalowcoststrategytoincreaseBMPsonexistingprivateproperty.Likethefinancialincentiveprograms,theserecognitionprogramsbuildsupportforwatershedrestorationandstormwaterprogramsamongthecitizenry.
4.2.3 Tracking and Reporting
InHamptonRoads,mostBMPsinstalledonprivatepropertywereimplementedbecausemotivatedlocalcitizensrespondedtoengagementeffortsoflocalgovernment,MasterGardeners
Section 4 ‐ Issues That Impact Feasibility
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 4‐7
andMasterNaturalists,andNGOs.SomeBMPswereinstalledasdemonstrationprojectstobuildawarenessandincreasestakeholderinvolvementusinggrantfunds.UnlessaBMPwasinstalledthrougharebateprogramoragrantproject(after2008),mostBMPshavenotbeentrackedandreported.Iftrackedandreported,theinformationavailableregardingthelocationandBMPcharacteristicsaretypicallynotsufficienttocalculatenutrientorsedimentreductions.
PrivatepropertyownersmaybewillingtoreportBMPinformation,buttheprocessmustbestraightforwardandnottimeconsuming.Ideally,localgovernmentsneedreliablereportingdatathatsatisfiesMS4permitaudits.AtrackingandreportingprotocolisacriticalelementofasuccessfulWIPstrategytoincreaseBMPsonprivatepropertyandallowlocalitiestocalculateandreportnutrientandsedimentreductionsforthoseBMPs.Ataminimum,alllocalitiesandtheStateshouldagreeonastandardformat,astandardlistofBMPretrofits,andstandardinformation(andunitsofmeasurement)toincludeinaGIS/database.CollaborationandcoordinationbetweentheState,localities,andnon‐profitwatershedgroupswouldfacilitatetransferofdataanddataanalysesandreducethefinancialburdenassociatedwitheachlocalitydevelopingandmaintainingtheirownsystem.
WetlandsWatchconductedasurveyofcitizensinHamptonRoadstoidentifythetypesofBMPsprivatepropertyownershavealreadyinstalled(seeAppendixI).Originally,theintentwastofocusonaselectpopulationofmembersoflocalwatershedgroupsandMasterGardenersandNaturalists;however,throughwordofmouth,apostingofthelinkontheaskHRgreen.orgwebsiteandalocalnewsstory,alargersegmentofthepopulationparticipatedinthesurvey.AsoftheMarch30,2012surveyenddate,266HamptonRoadscitizenscompletedthesurveyentitledWatershed‐FriendlyActionsinHamptonRoadstoself‐reportBMPsinstalledonprivateproperty(seeAppendixI).Giventhewillingnessofcitizenstoparticipateinthissurvey,HRPDCmightconsiderhostingasitethroughaskHRgreen.org,similartotheGreenUpDCsite(seesection2forprogramdiscussion),asavoluntaryreportingmechanismforcitizensandlocalwatershedgroups.Suchasitewouldalsoencourageandpromoteregionalactions.
AnneArundelCounty,MDandWashington,DChavebothdevelopedanon‐linetrackingandreportingsystemthatprivatepropertyownerscanaccessandusetoself‐reportBMPs.MontgomeryCounty,MDhasdevelopedatrackingdatabasethatislinkedtotheirGISsystemandtheCityofVirginiaBeachisintheprocessofworkingonasystemsimilartotheAnneArundelCountysystem.HRPDChasanexistingPermitAdministrationandReviewSystem(PARS)databasethatsome(butnotall)localitiesusetotrackBMPsandotherdataforMS4permits.ThissystemcouldberevisedtoaccommodateBMPretrofitdata.DCRrequiresWQIFgrantrecipientstotrackandreportBMPsinstalledwithgrantprojectsonaspreadsheet;however,thelistandnamesofacceptableBMPsdonotcorrespondcompletelywiththeVirginia‐approvednon‐proprietaryBMPsortheEPAapprovedBMPs.VirginiaDCRhiredacontractortodevelopthee‐PermittingsystemthatwillfeedintotheNationalEnvironmentalInformationExchangeNetwork(NEIEN)systemusedtotrackandtransmitBMPdatatotheEPAforinputintotheChesapeakeTMDLmodels.CBP(TomSchueler)alsoisintheprocessofdevelopingastandardformattedtrackingandreportingsystem.TheMarylandDEPalreadydevelopedastateBMPdatabasesystemthattracksMS4andTMDLrelatedBMPsandiscoordinatedwithlocaldatabasesystems.AreviewofAnneArundelCounty’s2010annualMS4permitreport,PhaseIIWIPreport,andon‐line“RestorationActivity”databaseindicatesthatthecountyisalreadyreportingandgettingcreditforimpervioussurface,nutrientandsedimentreductioncreditsfortheretrofitBMPsinstalledbyWatershedStewardsonprivateproperty.
Section 4 – Issues That Impact Feasibility
4‐8 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Trustandcontrolarelargebarrierstothesuccessofeffectiveregionalorstatewidesystems.Somelocalofficialsvoicedconcernthatthee‐Permittingsystemwillnotmeettheirdepartmentalneeds.OthersnotedthattheregionalHRPDCdatabaseisnotusedbyalllocalitiesandthatsomelocalitiespreferredtohavetheirownsystem.LocalgovernmentstaffinterviewednotedthatVirginiamaycollectdatafromthelocalities,butdoesnotprovidedatabacktolocalities.Somecitizensmayprefertoflybelowtheradarandrefusetoself‐reportorparticipateinaprogramthatrequiresanagreementtoletlocalofficialsinspectBMPsinstalledontheirproperty.
4.3 Coordination of Services
ThisreportidentifiesanumberofenvironmentalstewardtrainingprogramshostedbyorganizationssuchasMasterGardeners,localwatershedgroups,andNGOs.Trainedenvironmentalstewardscanprovidepropertyownerswithtraining,coordination,andmanagementservicesthatincludethefollowing:
Assessneighborhoodsandindividualproperties;
Developsite‐specificplans;
Educateandengageneighborsandcommunitymembers;
Reducepollutantsandstormwaterrunoffthroughwithdemonstrationprojects;
Coordinateandreportactions;
Fundraise;
Advocate&buildadvocacy;
Collectwaterqualitysamples;
Planttrees;
Restorehabitat;
Developnutrientmanagementplans;
MaintainBMPs;and
InspectBMPs.
Theleveloftechnicalexpertiseandservicesprovidedbytrainedenvironmentalstewardsvariesdependingonindividualstewardinterestsandphysicalability,professionalcredentials,andorganizationalleadershipandoversight.
Trainedenvironmentalstewardshavebeenvaluableresourcestolocalgovernmentandcommunities;however,thesestewardswouldmakestrongerpartnersifallstakeholdershadaclearunderstandingoftheinterestsandcapabilitiesofstewardsandtheirassociatedorganizations.Byestablishingregionaltrainingprogramsandaframeworkforcredentialing,privatepropertyownersandlocalgovernmentswouldhavemorecertaintythatprojectsguidedbyenvironmentalstewardswillbeinstalledaccordingtotechnicalstandardsandwillreceivelong‐termmaintenance.SinceBMPinstallationandmaintenancerangesfromverysimpletoverycomplex,itwouldserveallstakeholderstohavemoreinformationonwhichorganizationshavecapabilitiesthatmatchaproject’scomplexity.
Section 4 ‐ Issues That Impact Feasibility
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 4‐9
Also,centralizinginformationonstewardsandorganizations’capabilitiesmayhighlightgapsincommunityneeds.Forinstance,theVirginiaZoohasnotedthatbioremediationprojectslikeraingardensarepopularvolunteerdemonstrationprojects,butitisdifficulttofindvolunteerstoperformprojectmaintenance.
Astrongercommunicationnetworkandconsistentstewardshiptrainingcouldhelpminimizethenumberofmixed‐messagesbeingreceivedbyprivatepropertyowners.Forexample,lawn‐carecompaniesandgardencenters(andeventheVirginiaTechsoilanalysesreports)promoteexcessfertilizationofturf,whileNGOsandlocalgovernmentarespreadingthe“lessisbetter”message.BeWaterSmartprogramspromotexeriscaping(lowwaterneedslandscapingtechniques)thatmayincludeinvasivespeciesandnon‐nativeplants,whileNGOsandothergovernmentprogramspromotetheuseofnativeplants.Anotherissueistheneedforcoordinationwiththeprivatesectortoaddressthemarketdemandforspecificmaterialsandexpertise.Forexample,programstoincreasetheuseofBMPsonprivatepropertycreateamarketforsupplies(i.e.perviouspavers,nativeplants,rainbarrels,andraingardenkits)andfortrainedandexperiencedlandscapeprofessionalsandnutrientmanagers.Theseresourcesmaynotbeavailableinthemarketplace.
TheAnneArundelCountyWSAhasdevelopedanumbrellaprogramthatcanserveasamodelforprogramsinHamptonRoads,withmodificationstobetterfitregionalconditions.AHamptonRoadsStrategicSummitisproposedtolookatexistingenvironmentalstewardshipprogramsandmakerecommendationsoncurriculum,programmissions,stewardroles,andorganizationaladjustmentsastheypertaintoVirginiaandspecifically,HamptonRoads.StakeholdershavevoicedconcernsthattheStrategicSummitshouldfocusonrefiningandstrengtheningexistingprogramsandnetworksthatrespondtolocalprioritiesratherthandevelopinganewregionalprogram.
Section 4 – Issues That Impact Feasibility
4‐10 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Section 5 – Existing BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 5‐1
5 Existing BMPs
Anotherobjectiveofthisinvestigationwastoconductoutreachtonon‐profitorganizationstocatalogexistingundocumentedBMPsthatwereimplementedthroughgrant‐fundedefforts,community‐basedprograms,orothervoluntaryprojects.Inaddition,WetlandsWatchwastoattempttoquantifythenutrientremovalachievedbytheseprojects.Availableinformationwascollectedthroughareviewofgrantreportingrecords,asurvey,andinterviewswithprojectcoordinators,participants,andfunders.Specifictasksincluded:
Identifygrant‐fundedefforts,community‐basedprograms,andothervoluntaryprojectsthathaveimplementedBMPsonprivateresidentialandlightcommercialproperties;
AssessthequalityofthedataavailableonthoseBMPs;
Giventhequalityofavailabledata,assessthefeasibilityofusingtheBMP‐relateddatatoquantifythenutrientreductionachievedbytheprojects;
Collectestimatesofnutrientreductionachievedbytheprojectsviaprojectreportstofundersand/orself‐reportingofprojectcoordinatorsandparticipantsobtainedthroughinterviewsorsurveys;
Identifysourcesandamountoffundingusedtofundtheprojects;and
Summarizeallinformationbylocality.
InordertoassessthevalueofavailableBMPdata,WetlandsWatchidentifiedwhetherNGOs:
TrackedthenumberofBMPsinstalledperproject;
Canprovidespecificsregardingthelocation,design,installation,continuedoperation,andmaintenanceofBMPsinstalled;and
CanprovideindividualorcumulativeestimatesofnutrientremovalratesforBMPsinstalled.
WetlandsWatchdeterminedthat,althoughtherearesomedataavailableregardingexistingBMPsonprivatepropertiesinstalledthroughgrant‐fundedprojects,thelevelofdetailofmostBMPdataisinsufficienttocalculatenutrientorsedimentreductionwithoutadditionalinvestigation.Mostgrant‐fundedprojectsconductedbynon‐profitorganizationsinHamptonRoadsfocusedoncommunityoutreachasameanstobuildadvocacy,changebehavior,andconvincetheirmemberstousewater‐friendlypracticesontheirproperty.ManyoftheBMPswereinstalledasdemonstrationprojectsonpublicpropertyorinstitutionalpropertywiththeobjectivetogetpeopletostartpracticingratherthantrackBMPsinstalled.;.
Thenon‐profitorganizationprojectsthathavetrackedBMPdatahavereportedinformationindifferentformatsasrequiredbythefundingsource.Thelevelofdetailrequiredbyfundersvariesbetweensourcesandfromyeartoyear.Forinstance,informationmightbereportedinnumberofplantings,typeofBMPinstalled,totalacrestreated,orsquarefeetoftheprojectandmayormaynotincludeanestimateofnutrientandsedimentreduction.AdditionalinformationisneededtoevenidentifywhichtypeofBMPthe“plantsinstalled”mightfallunder.Iftheplantsincludedtreesandshrubstoreplaceturforimpervioussurfaces,the“plantsinstalled”couldbedefinedasaland‐usechangereportedinacresconvertedfromPerviousorImperviousUrbanlandstoForestlands.
Section 5 – Existing BMPs
5‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
DiscussionswithLynnhavenRiverNOWandtheElizabethRiverProjectindicatethatadditionaldetailedBMPdatacanbecompiledfromfilesand/orthroughacomprehensivesurveyofmembers.However,thiseffortistimeconsumingandstaffintensive.LRNiswaitingfortheCityofVirginiaBeachtofinalizetheirtrackingandreportingsystem.Inaddition,boththeLRNPearlHomesandERPRiverStarHomesprogramsthatfocusonresidentialandsmallbusinessownedprivatepropertiesarerelativelynew.Asasidenote,theprogramsarepopularwithcitizens.LRNandERPhavesignedup376and695homes,respectively,andtheseprogramswilltrackthetypesofBMPsinstalledonprivatepropertyandtheaddressesofparticipants.
LocalitieswithintheElizabethRiverWatershedshouldconsiderestablishingacollaborativerelationshipwithERPliketheLRN/CityofVirginiaBeachcollaborationinordertoensurethatdataonBMPsinstalledthroughtheRiverStarHomesprogramiscapturedandreported.Ataminimum,everypropertyownerthatsignsontobecomeaRiverStarHomewillbepracticingurbannutrientmanagementbecauseitisaconditionoftheagreementtobecomeaRiverStarHome.
NutrientmanagementplansdevelopedbyTurfLove(andanyotherDCRcertifiednutrientmanager)aretrackedandreportedtoDCRannuallyandDCRinturn,reportstheinformationtotheEPAforinputintotheWatershedModel.ThisinformationwasincorporatedintothedataprovidedtolocalitiesbyDCRforPhaseIIWIPplanningpurposes.
Theoriginalintentofthisstudywastodevelopasimpledatabasefromexistingspreadsheetsandinformationcollectedduringthisinvestigation.However,theinconsistentreportingmethodsandlackofdetaileddatamakeitdifficulttocompiletheinformationusingthedatabaseformat.Theefforttocollectmoredetaileddataisbeyondthescopeofthisproject.WetlandsWatchcompiledreadilyavailableBMPandgrant‐fundedprojectinformationintoaspreadsheetwithseveraltabs(FinalExistingBMPs.xls).ThespreadsheetisorganizedbylocalityandisavailablefromHRPDCelectronically.Forsomeprojectslisted,BMPswereinstalledonbothpublicandprivatepropertyandreportedsuchthatWetlandsWatchwasunabletodistinguishtheBMPsonprivateproperty.ThespreadsheetformatisbasedontheformatusedbyNFWFtocompileandsummarizegrantinformation;however,WetlandsWatchaddedseveralnewBMPcolumnstocapturedatacollectedduringtheinvestigation.DataprovidedregardingBMPsinstalledandnutrientandsedimentreductionsachievedarereportedastotalsforentireprojects;WetlandsWatchwasunabletodiscernindividualBMPlocationsorquantifynutrientandsedimentremovalratesforeachpracticeinstalled.AdditionaleffortisneededtoworkwithNGOgrantprojectcoordinatorstoascertainifmoredetaileddataisavailable,reliable,andquantifiable.
AsdiscussedinSection3,AppropriateBMPs,shorelineerosioncontrolpractices,oysterreefs,SAVplantings,andmarinepump‐outstationsareallpotentialBMPsthatshouldbefurtherexploredforclarificationonwhetherornottheyareincludedintheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2ortheWaterQualityandSedimentTransportModel.BecauseamajorityofHamptonRoadsAreaistidallyinfluenced,theseactionshavebeenidentifiedaseffectivepollutantandsedimentreductiontechniques.ERP,LRN,andCBFhaveimplementedandpromotedSAVplantings,oysterreefs/oystergardening,andtheuseofmarinepump‐outstations.Someoftheactionsaretrackedandreportedforgrantprojects,butmanyoystergardenersmaynotreporttheiractions.TheseactionsshouldbereportedtoVIMSfortrackingandVIMS,ifnotalreadydoingso,shouldprovidetheinformationtoDCRandtheEPAforinclusionintheWaterQualityandSedimentTransportModel.
Section 5 – Existing BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 5‐3
Non‐structuralshorelineerosioncontrolBMPsincludetheinstallationofnativeplantsandwetlands,andthistypeofactionrequiresregulatorypermits.Therefore,WetlandsWatchassumedthatlocalgovernmentagenciestrackandreportnativeplantingsandtidalwetlandsrestorationactions.LocalitiesmaynotbeawarethattheseactionscanbeusedasaBMPandmaynothavereportedtheactionsduringthePhaseIIWIPprocess.Thesamecanbesaidforoffshorebreakwater(livingshoreline)andheadlandcontrolBMPs.BothofthesetypesofBMPsrequirepermitsfromVMRC,sothereisalreadyamechanismtotracktheseBMPs.LocalitiesandVirginiamaynotbeawarethattheseactionsshouldbereportedasBMPs.WetlandsWatchdidnotcontactlocalandstateregulatoryagenciestoobtainshorelinerestorationorerosioncontroldata.WetlandsrestorationdatafromtheLafayetteWetlandsPartnershipactionsaresummarizedintheexistingBMPdataspreadsheet(FinalExistingBMPs.xls).
InanefforttoidentifythetypesofBMPsinstalledinHamptonRoadsasaresultofallthevariousoutreach,education,andinvolvementprograms,WetlandsWatchconductedaninformalonlinesurveyof“WatershedFriendlyActionsinHamptonRoads”(seeAppendixI).ThesurveywasoriginallyintendedtogatherinformationfromselectNGOmembersandtrainedenvironmentalstewards(MasterGardeners,VoiCeS,andMasterNaturalists);however,alargersegmentofthepopulationparticipatedinthesurvey,whichranfromFebruary1,2012toMarch30,2012.Atotalof266citizensparticipatedinthesurvey.Thesurveyaskedparticipantstoidentifydifferentwatershed‐friendlypracticesthattheyareusingontheirproperty(orinstalledonsomeoneelse’sprivateproperty),whodidthedesignwork,whoinstalledthepractice,dotheyusealawnserviceorfertilizetheirlawnthemselves,anddotheyhaveanyconcerns,advice,orexperiencestoshare.
AsummaryofparticipationbylocalityisprovidedinFigure5‐1.ThesurveycanalsobequeriedbyNGOsandenvironmentalstewardprograms.Thenumberofsurveyparticipantsshouldnotbeconsideredanindicatorofalackofactivityinalocality;itismoreanindicatorofparticipantaccesstothesurvey.Forexample,theElizabethRiverProjecthadjustcompletedasurveyofitsmembersandfeltthatitwasnotagoodtimetoaskmemberstoparticipateinanothersurvey.LynnhavenRiverNOWincludedarequesttomembersinanewsletter.ThelackofsurveyparticipantsinlocalitieslikeSouthampton,Franklin,andSurryreflectsthefactthatWetlandsWatchdidnothaveacontactforanactiveNGOinthoselocalities.
Figures5‐2through5‐4summarizetheresponsesofsurveyparticipants.Figure5‐2summarizeslawn/turfrelatedpracticesofthesurveyparticipants.SomeofthesepracticeswouldfallundertheurbannutrientmanagementBMPandothersmightrepresentaland‐usechangefromUrbanPervioustoForestlandifthenativeplantsincludetreesandshrubs.
Figure5‐3summarizesimperviousurbansurfacereduction,reforestation(treeplantingandforestbuffers)andon‐siteLIDretrofitBMPsthatsurveyparticipantsareusingonprivateproperty.Figure5‐4summarizesthedifferenttypesofBMPsthatsurveyparticipantsareusingonwaterfront/streamsideprivatepropertyincludingnon‐structuralerosioncontrol,livingshorelines,wetlandsrestoration,andstreamrestorationaswellasoystergardeningandSAVplanting.
Inconclusion,engagementofcitizensthroughlocal,NGO,andtrainedenvironmentalstewardeffortshaveresultedinthevoluntaryinstallationofBMPsonprivateproperty.However,additionaleffortsareneededtoalignregulatoryterminologyandstandardswiththewater‐friendlyorconservationlandscaping‐typeterminologyandpracticesusedbyNGOs,trainedenvironmentalstewards,landscapecontractors,suppliersandprivatepropertyowners.Once
Section 5 – Existing BMPs
5‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
thisalignmentoccurs,inordertoclaimnutrientandsedimentreductioncredits,localitieswillneedtocoordinatewithstakeholderstoensurethatthepracticesarereportedinastandardformat,areinstalledandfunctioningasBMPs,andaremaintainedovertime.Localitiesalsowillneedtoestablishreportingprotocolsanddecidewhetherornottheywishtoallowself‐reportingofpracticessimilartothoseemployedbyAnneArundelCounty,MDandWashington,DC.
Figure 5‐1: Localities in Which “Watershed‐Friendly Behavior in Hampton Roads” Survey Participants Reside.
23.7% Virginia Beach (55)
15.5% James City County (36)
11.6% Newport News (27)
10.7% Hampton (25)
9.0% Norfolk (21)
7.7% Chesapeake (18)
6.8% Poquoson (16)
3.8% York County (9)
3.8% Williamsburg (9)
2.1% Suffolk (5)
2.1% Isle of Wight (5)
1.2% Portsmouth (3)
0.8% Gloucester (2)
0.4% Surry County (1)
0.0% Franklin (0)
0.0% Southampton County (0)
Section 5 – Existing BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 5‐5
Figure 5‐2: Summary of Lawn/Turf Related Practices from “Watershed‐Friendly Behavior in Hampton Roads”
23.4% Lawn/turf is mowed at a height no less than 3 inches (147)
21.3% Stopped fertilizing lawn/turf (134)
18.6% Reduced lawn/turf area and replaced it with native plants (117)
14.0% Had soil analyzed (88)
9.4% Reduced fertilizer application to once in the fall (59)
6.8% View "Other" Answers
2.5% This property does not have a lawn (16)
1.4% Hired a water‐friendly certified lawn care company to maintain my lawn/turf (9)
1.2% None of the Above (8)
0.9% Haven't done any of the above but would consider it in the future (6)
Section 5 – Existing BMPs
5‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Figure 5‐3: Summary of Impervious Surface Reduction, On‐site LID, and other BMPs from “Watershed‐Friendly Behavior in Hampton Roads”
15.7% Planted native plants and avoided invasive species (133)
14.1% I collect yard debris so it doesn't go down the storm drain (119)
12.4% Redirected downspouts and other stormwater runoff away from paved surfaces and into a planted bed or other permeable area (105)
11.6% Installed one or more rain barrels or cisterns (98)
11.2% Planted trees/participated in a tree planting project (95)
10.5% Scoop my dog's poop (89)
9.1% Installed a buffer garden of native trees, shrubs, perennials, and grasses between my lawn and waterway, wetlands, and/or the street (77)
3.7% Installed and maintain a rain garden (or bioretention area) to reduce and filter stormwater runoff (32)
3.3% Replaced paved surfaces with permeable pavement that allows water to soak into the ground (28)
2.7% Replaced impervious surfaces like concrete/asphalt driveways, walks and patios with permeable area that includes plants (23)
1.6% Created a wetland on the property with native wetland plants (14)
1.5% View "Other" Answers
0.7% None of the Above (6)
0.7% Haven't done any of the above but will consider it in the future (6)
0.5% Installed a green roof (5)
Section 5 – Existing BMPs
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 5‐7
Figure 5‐4: Summary of BMPs used by waterfront private property owners from “Watershed‐Friendly Behavior in Hampton Roads”
36.8% This is not a waterfront property (114)
9.3% Expanded an existing or established a new buffer of native plants (29)
9.3% View "Other" Answers
8.7% None of the above (27)
7.4% Established a conservation area of native plants and/or wetlands (23)
5.5% Restored and protected wetlands (17)
4.8% Oyster gardening (15)
4.2% Installed a living shoreline to control erosion (13)
3.5% Participated in a streambank or stream restoration project (11)
3.2% Stopped mowing the wetland plants and now protect them (10)
2.5% Created a wetland on the property with native wetland plants (8)
2.2% None of the above, but would consider it in the future (7)
1.2% Replaced impervious surfaces like concrete/asphalt driveways, walks and patios with planted beds (4)
0.6% Planted underwater grasses (SAV) (2)
Section 5 – Existing BMPs
5‐8 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 6‐1
6 Summary and Recommendations
Thefinalobjectiveofthisinvestigationwastodevelopaplanningframeworktoguideimplementationofnutrientreductionsonprivatepropertyincludingtwoelements:
1. Strategiestoworkwithinthelocality’sauthorityandleverageexistingtoolstoimplementandmaintainretrofitsandBMPsonagricultural,conservation,andurbanlands;and
2. AsamplevoluntaryprogramthatlocalitiesmayusetoincentivizeimplementationandmaintenanceofBMPsonresidentialprivateproperty.
Atthebeginningofthisproject,HRPDCandWetlandsWatchagreedthatthefindingsofthisinvestigationwouldbeconsideredpreliminaryinnature,giventheexpeditedprojectschedule.Inaddition,itwasagreedthatamoredetailedassessmentandrecommendationswillbeformulatedthroughacollaborativeandinclusiveregionalStrategicSummit.Intheinterim,WetlandsWatchagreedtoprovidethefollowing:
Examplesoflocalgovernmentcollaborationwithgrant‐funded,community‐based,andothervoluntarystormwatermanagement/stewardshipprojectsintheHamptonRoadsarea;
Asampleofseveralmodelsprogramsandstrategiestoworkwithinthelocality’sauthorityandleverageexistingtoolstoimplementandmaintainretrofitsandBMPsonprivateproperty;
AsummaryofexistingprogramsbylocalityincludingthenumberofpotentialexistingBMPsonprivatepropertyandthegrantmoneyreceivedfortheprojects;and
Asummarytableofallstakeholderscontactedandprograms/programdetailsreviewedduringtheproject.
Section2,ExistingModelPrograms,providesanumberofmodelprogramsthatlocalitiescanemulateormodifybasedontheirownneedsinordertoincreasethenumberofBMPsonprivatepropertyandusethenutrientandsedimentreductionassociatedwiththoseBMPstomeettheChesapeakeBayTMDL.SevenoftheprogramshighlightedarelocatedinVirginiawiththreeoftheprogramsinHamptonRoads.Mostoftheprogramshighlighted,whetherinitiatedbylocalgovernment,NGOs,orSWCDs,includeseveralkeycharacteristicsthatlocalitiesinHamptonRoadsshouldconsiderwhendesigningtheirownprogram.Therecommendationsinthissectionareprovidedwithacaveat:thetimeconstraintsandtiming(duringthePhaseIIWIPpreparationeffort)ofthisinvestigationmadeitdifficulttospeakdirectlywithallstakeholdersoridentifyalltheprogramswithintheareathroughaliteraturesearch.Wesuggestthatreadersconsiderthiseffortapreliminaryinvestigation.WetlandsWatchwelcomesthereviewandcommentsofinterestedpartiesandtechnicalexpertswithmoreintimateknowledgeofprogramsandissues.
6.1 Recommendation #1 – Engage in a Comprehensive Planning Effort
Organizeprogramsaroundacomprehensiveplanningeffortthatincludeswatershedrestorationatthesubwatershedlevel.Acomprehensiveplanningapproachwillallowlocalitiestodefinetheproblems,compilealistofcommongoalsandoverlappinginterests,identifybarriers,identifyopportunitiesforcoordinatedandcollaborativesolutionsthatfocusonlocalprioritiesandareasofconcernbyneighborhood,identifybudgetaryneeds,andprovideallstakeholderswitha
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
6‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
commonvisionandroadmapofimplementationstrategies.Ataminimum,localitiescouldutilizetheHRPDCregionalGreenInfrastructurePlan(2010)asreferenceforwatershedorstormwatermanagementplansandlookforopportunitiestorefinetheGreenInfrastructurePlantothelocallevel.TheGreenInfrastructurePlanidentifiesexistingriparianbuffersandcorridors,priorityhabitatpreservationareas,existingopenspaces,etc.ReforestationBMPs(treeplantingandforestbuffers)areapprovedBMPsthatcanbeusedtoconnectandenhanceripariancorridors,providestormwatermanagement,andimprovehabitat.
Stakeholdersinvolvedinplandevelopmentshouldincludecommunityleaders;local,state,andregionalgovernmentagencies;privatesectortechnicalexperts,serviceproviders,andsuppliers;trainedenvironmentalstewards;andlocalandregionalwatershedandcivicgroups.Somewatershedgroups(ElizabethRiverProjectandLynnhavenRiverNOW)havedevelopedwatershedrestorationprioritiesfortheirwatershedsthatmayservethisneed.Table6‐1summarizesplanninginitiatives,activeNGOs,stewardprograms,andSWCDsbylocality.
LocalitiesandprojectorganizerscanusedocumentslikeCWP’s“UrbanWatershedRestorationManualSeries,CWP’sSmartWatershedBenchmarkingTool”(RoweandSchueler,2008),and/orVirginiaDCR’s“LocalWatershedManagementPlanninginVirginia,ACommunityWaterQualityApproach”(n.d.)forguidancetoensurethattheplanningeffortiscomprehensiveandinclusive.
6.2 Recommendation #2 ‐ Form Partnerships and Collaborate
Collaboration,partnerships,andprotocolsshouldbeestablishedtoreducecosts,increaseefficiency,solvemultipleproblems,andensurethatBMPsareproperlydesigned,installed,inspected,maintained,andtracked.Inaddition,collaborationandpartnershipsshouldbeformedtorefinemethodsofoutreachandcommunicationandsynchronizeregionalmessagesandeffortswithlocalcommunity‐levelefforts.
SeverallocaleffortscanserveasmodelsforotherlocalitiesandorganizationsincludingprogramsandplanningeffortsinVirginiaBeach,inJamesCityCounty,inNorfolkassociatedwiththeLafayetteRiverRestoration,inPortsmouthassociatedwithParadiseCreek,inHamptonassociatedwiththeHamptonComprehensiveWaterwaysManagementPlanandthemulti‐jurisdictionaleffortsassociatedwithElizabethRiverRestorationplan.
6.3 Recommendation #3 ‐ Apply Community‐Based Social Marketing Techniques
Implementationstrategiesshouldfocusoncommunity‐basedsocialmarketingtechniques.PartneringwithlocalNGOs,trainedstewards,andcommunityleaderstoworkwithintheirowncommunitiesastrustedadvisorswillincreasethelikelihoodofpeopleadoptingnewwatershedfriendlybehaviorsandinstallingandmaintainingBMPsonprivateproperty.Otherlocalitiesandorganizationswillbenefitfromanalyses,recommendations,andexperiencesgainedbytheERP’scollaborationwithDr.DougMcKenzie‐MohrontheRiverStarHomesprogramintheLafayetteRiverRestorationefforts.Inaddition,programorganizersshouldlookforandrecruitcommunityleadersfrom:
Leadershipinstitutes;
CivicLeagues;
HOAs;
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 6‐3
Faith‐basedorganizations;
Profession‐basedorganizations;and
Decision‐makerslikecitycouncil,countysupervisors,boardmembers,etc.
6.4 Recommendation #4 – Identify Funding Sources and Incentives
Localities(orotherprogramorganizers)shouldconsiderutilizingacombinationoffundingmechanismsincludingin‐kindvolunteerlaborandpartnershipswithgrant‐fundedNGOs.Inaddition,theprogramshouldprovideincentivesandassistancetohelpprivatepropertyownerspayfortheBMPsandtofacilitateandpromotetheidentificationofsite‐specificareasofconcern,recommendappropriateBMPs,andensurethatBMPsaredependablyinstalled,maintained,andtracked.WithintheHamptonRoadsarea,NFWFprovidedapproximately$2.5millioningrantmoneytoNGOs,SWCDs,andlocalitiestoconductoutreach,education,anddeliverincentive‐basedprogramsthatincreaseenvironmentalstewardshipandthenumberofBMPsonexistingprivateproperty.NFWFgrantsrequirea50%match,sothetotaleconomicvalueassociatedwiththesegrantsisatleast$5million.FromtheNFWFfilesprovidedtoWetlandsWatch,itisestimatedthatNFWFprovidedalmost$20millioninfundingthroughacombinationofSmallandTargetedWatershedGrantsinVirginiafrom2006topresent.
Localitiesthathavestormwaterutilityfeesshouldconsiderestablishingastormwaterrebate/credit/cost‐shareprogramsimilartoprogramsintheCityofRichmondandArlingtonCounty.Thesefinancialincentivescouldbeusedtomatchincentives(financialorassistance‐typeincentives)ofgrant‐fundedNGOprogramslikeRiverStarandPearlHomes.Withrebate/credit/cost‐shareprograms,localitiescanrequirepropertyownerstosignmaintenanceandinspectionagreementsandtheprogramsprovidelocalitieswithawaytotrackandreportBMPsonprivateproperty.
Manylocalitieshaveothertypesofincentiveprogramsthatprovidegrantsorrebatestoprivatepropertyownersandneighborhoodsfortreeplanting,beautification,reducedwateruse,stormwatermanagement,trashcleanup,etc.Localitiesshouldidentifyandcoordinateallincentiveprogramsandco‐promotetheseprograms.
6.5 Recommendation #5 – Define Appropriate BMPs
Theprogramshouldpromotelocal‐,state‐andEPA‐approvedBMPsthatprovidecommunity‐andlocality‐specificsolutionsforarangeofissuesandhavereadilyavailablestandardsandprotocolsforsiteanalysis,designmodifications,installation,reporting,andmaintenanceforurbanstormwaterretrofitsandotherBMPs.TheprogramshouldpromotealltypesofappropriateBMPs,notjusturbanstormwaterretrofitslikeon‐siteLIDandgreenstreetretrofits.ProgramcoordinatorsshouldselectandencourageBMPsbasedonlocalneeds,conditions,pollutantsofconcern,anduniquesitecharacteristics.
CSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9(Schueler,2011)providesBMPandWIPguidanceforlocalities.InaSeptember15,2011webcastbytheMid‐AtlanticWaterProgram,“IncreasingtheDeliveryofResidentialStewardshipPracticesinUrbanWatersheds,”CSN’sTomSchuelerrecommendsthatlocalities“focusonnutrientreductionandacrestreated…andshifttostewardshippractices”thatinclude:
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
6‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Fertilizerreduction;
Rooftopdisconnection;
Reforestation;
Conservationlandscaping;
Raingardens;
Septicsystemupgrades;
Streamrestoration;and
RPAbufferupgrades.
AreviewofpracticesbeingpromotedandincentivizedinArlingtonCountyandtheCityofRichmond,indicatethattheselocalitiesareapplyingthisstrategy.ThefollowingisalistofpracticespromotedbyeitherArlingtonCountyorRichmond:
Raingardens(bioretentionwithadjustedefficiencyrates);
Conservationlandscapes–conversionoflawnsandnon‐nativeinvasivespeciestonativeplants(minimumof150squarefeet)(land‐usechangefromPerviousUrbantoForestlands);
Vegetatedfilterstrips–uniformstripsofdenseturf,meadowgrassestreesandothervegetationwithaminimumslopeandcantreatrunofffromroofdownspouts(downspoutdisconnection–imperviousurbansurfacereduction);
Treeplanting–targetwholecommunity,giveawayfreenativetreestoindividualpropertyowners(reforestation–land‐usechange);
RPAbufferplantings–increasefrom0to35feetorincreaseto100feet(reforestationandforestbuffer);
Replaceexistingimpervioussurfacewithpervioussurfaceslikeperviouspavers,lawn,orplantingbeds(minimumof150squarefeet)(imperviousurbansurfacereduction);
Directdownspoutstowardsperviouspavementorotherinfiltrationandbioretentionareas–(imperviousurbansurfacereductionwithadjustedefficiencyrates);
Greenroofs–(imperviousurbansurfacereduction);and
Cisterns–(imperviousurbansurfacereduction),rebateandbuild‐your‐ownrainbarrelsworkshop(buildadvocacy).
Inadditiontotheabovepractices,localitiesshouldconsideringincludingurbannutrientmanagementstrategiesliketheJamesCityCountyTurfLoveprogram,LynnhavenRiverNOW’sefforts,ortheElizabethRiverProject’sRiverStarHomes.AllofthesepracticesareVirginiaandEPAapprovedpractices.Granted,EPAandVirginianeedtoagreeoncommonefficiencyremovalrates;however,mostofthepracticesaremodeledaslandusechangesorurbannutrientmanagement.Forraingardens(andotheron‐siteLIDretrofits),Schueler’srecommendedmethodologyforcalculatingadjustednutrientandsedimentefficiencyrates,aspresentedinCSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9(Schueler,2011),isprovidedinAppendixHofthisreport.
WetlandsWatchrecommendsthat,inadditiontotheabovementionedpractices,localitiesshouldtrackandreporttidalshorelineBMPs(usingtheloadreductionratesprovidedwithinthe
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 6‐5
ChesapeakeBayWatershedModel5.3.2)liketidalwetlands/bufferrestorationandlivingshorelines.AdditionalclarificationisneededfromEPAregardingthewetlandsrestorationBMP,SAVplantings,oysterrestoration,andmarinesewagedisposalfacilities.
6.6 Recommendation #6 – Coordinate with Private Sector to Increase Available Materials and Services
TheprogramorganizersshouldworkwiththeprivatesectorandsupportagrowingmarketfortrainedprofessionalsandBMPsuppliesandsuppliers.Someorganizationsalreadyareworkingwiththeprivatesector;however,theeffortsarelocalizedandtrainingopportunitiesarenotcomprehensiveorongoing.AllHamptonRoadslocalitieswouldbenefitfromawell‐coordinatedefforttodevelopandpromotealargernetworkoftrainedprofessionalsandtosupportagrowingmarketforBMPsuppliesandsuppliers.Aregional,cooperativeeffortcouldbeaddressedattheproposedStrategicSummit.
6.7 Recommendation # 7 ‐ Develop a Data Management Plan
TheState,theregion,localities,andNGOsmustcollaboratetodevelopaconsistentdatamanagementplantolocate,track,analyze,andreportselectBMPsinordertodemonstrateregulatorycompliance,assessprogramimpacts,orsatisfyfunders’reportingrequirements.Ataminimum,theHamptonRoadsregionshouldparticipateinthedevelopmentoftheVirginiae‐PermittingsystemtofacilitateatransferofBMPinformationbackandforthbetweenthestateandlocalities.AllentitiesengagedinthedesignanddevelopmentofaBMPdatabase/GIStrackingsystemshouldagreeonacommondatareportingformat,consistentterminology,minimumBMPdatatotrack,andstandardunitsofmeasurement.TheBMPdatabase/GIStrackingsystemshouldtrackalltypesofapprovedBMPs,notjusturbanstormwaterretrofits,andshouldsupportotherregulatorypermitandgrant‐fundedreportingrequirements.TheregionwouldbenefitfromacollaborativeefforttoaddressBMPtrackingandshareexistingdatathroughasystemliketheonebeingdevelopedbytheCityofVirginiaBeach.
6.8 Recommendation #8 – Organize, Coordinate, and Refine Steward Programs
Theregionandlocalitiesshouldsponsorhands‐onworkshopsandcomprehensivetrainingprogramsforlocalstormwaterandlandscapeprofessionals,do‐it‐yourselfers,andenvironmentalstewards.Theregionwouldbenefitfromcollaborative,consistenttrainingeffortsparticularlyforlocallandscapeprofessionalsandenvironmentalstewards.AreviewofexistingenvironmentalstewardprogramsliketheMasterGardeners,MasterNaturalists,andVoiCeS,indicatesthatnooneprogramoffersalltheservices,technicalsupport,organizationalsupport,andtrackingorreportingprovidedbythetrainedWatershedStewardsinAnneArundelCountyandNationalCapitalRegion.TheWatershedStewardAcademiesweredesignedtocircumventsomeoftheproblemsencounteredbyotherlocalitieslikeMontgomeryCountyandprovideskilledservicesrequiredtoimproveexistinglocality‐designedandoperatedprograms.WetlandsWatchcontinuestoseeaneedforafacilitatedStrategicSummittoidentifywaystoimproveexistingenvironmentalstewardprograms,developanetworktostrengthenexistingorganizationsandrelationships,sharelessonslearnedandresources,andeliminateredundanteffortsandconflictingmessages.
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
6‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
6.9 Recommendation #9 – Convene a Regional Strategic Summit
ThisreportinitiatedtheprocessofreviewingexistingmodelprogramsandNGOeffortsinHamptonRoadstoidentifystrategiesthatlocalitiescanusetoincrease,track,andreceivecreditforBMPsonprivatepropertyfortheChesapeakeBayTMDL.Opportunitiesforcollaborationhavebeenidentified,aswellasopportunitiestoimproveexistingprogramsandtoincreasethelikelihoodofprogramsuccess,butadditionalworkisneeded.AregionalStrategicSummitwouldprovideanopportunityforamoreintensivelookatexistingprogramsandopportunitiesforcollaboration,coordination,partnerships,andnetworking.AdditionalfocusedworkshopscouldberunthroughtheHamptonRoadsWatershedRoundtableWorkshopsthatHRPDCsponsorsonaquarterlybasis.IssuestoaddressattheStrategicSummitandthequarterlyworkshopsincludethefollowing:
HighlightexistingmodelprogramsingreaterdetailandidentifybestmodelsforHamptonRoadslocalities.
ShareresourcesandlessonslearnedlocallyandinotherareasofVirginia.
Identifystandardcurriculumandqualifiedinstructorsthatcouldbesharedbyallstewardprogramsandlandscapeprofessionalsregardlessoflocality.Identifycreative,costeffectivewaystodeliverthetrainingandmaketrainingmoreaccessible.
Identifylocality‐specificneedsversusregionalneedsfortrainingandservicesthatcanbeprovidedbytrainedlandscapeprofessionalsandtrainedstewards.
Developatechnicalconsortiumthatwouldbeavailableeitherregionallyorlocallyfortrainedstewards.
DevelopastrategytoincreasetheavailabilityofBMP‐relatedproductsandserviceswithinthemarketplace.Networkwithprofessionalorganizationsandotherprivatesectorstakeholderstoincreaseawarenessandpromotethisnewmarket.
Identifyachain‐of‐commandforeachlocalitytoensurecoordinationofNGOsandtrainedstewardseffortswithlocalgovernmentprogramsandprojects.
Developprotocolfordesign,installation,inspection,maintenance,tracking,andreportingofBMPsinstalledonprivateproperty.
CoordinatelocalgovernmentBMPtrackingprogramswithVirginiaandEPAeffortstofacilitatereportingforMS4permits,localTMDLs,theChesapeakeBayTMDL,andotherregulatoryprograms.
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 6‐7
Table6‐1: SummaryofCollaborativePlanningEfforts,NGOs,andSWCDsbyLocality
DetailsCityofChesapeakePlanningInitiatives ForwardChesapeake2026ComprehensivePlan– NaturalResources,Green
InfrastructurePlan,WatershedManagementPlans,SustainableChesapeakeInitiative‐SustainabilityPlanandCommittee,NorthwestRiverWatershedProtectionDistrict,UrbanForestManagementPlan,HRGreen,LEEDBuildingpolicyforCityfacilities,Bicycle/TrailsAdvisoryCommittee,AnnualArborDayCelebration,OpenSpaceandAgriculturalPreservation(OSAP)Program
StormwaterUtilityFee
Yes,creditfornonresidentialstormwatermanagement
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
EnvironmentalImprovementCouncil,NeighborhoodLeadershipProgram,NeighborhoodMatchingGrantsProgram,RiverStarHomes,Schools,Businesses
TrainedStewards MasterGardeners,TidewaterMasterNaturalists,VoiCeS
SWCD VirginiaDare
NGOs ElizabethRiverProject,ChesapeakeArboretum
GloucesterCountyPlanningInitiatives FloodMitigationPlan,ComprehensivePlan
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
TheCleanCommunityProgram,CBF– GrassesfortheMasses,VIMSresearchprojects
TrainedStewards CBFOystergardeners,VoiCeS,VIMSworkshops,MasterGardeners
SWCD Tidewater
NGOs TidewaterOysterGardenersAssociation
CityofHamptonPlanningInitiatives HamptonCleanCityCommission,EnvironmentalSustainabilityCoordinator,
HamptonComprehensiveWaterwaysManagementPlanSteeringCommittee,VIMSshorelinemanagementstudy,NeighborhoodPlans,NewmarketCreekParkandTrailSystemMasterPlan,BeachFrontandStormProtectionPlan,NewmarketandBackRiverRestorationProject
StormwaterUtilityFee
Yes,norebate
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
KeepHamptonGreen,CleanCityCommissionY.A.R.D.SandEnvironmentalStewardsawards,HamptonNeighborhoodCommissionNeighborhoodGrants,HamptonHousingVentureCurbAppealMatchingGrants
TrainedStewards PeninsulaMasterNaturalists,MasterGardeners(AdvancedWaterStewards),VoiCeS,OysterGardeners
VCE MeganTierney
University/Research VIMS,HamptonUniversity
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
6‐8 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Table6‐1: SummaryofCollaborativePlanningEfforts,NGOs,andSWCDsbyLocality(continued)
DetailsIsleofWightCountyPlanningInitiative ComprehensivePlan,HazardMitigation
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
SepticPump‐outGrantProgram
TrainedStewards HistoricSouthsideMasterNaturalists,WesternTidewaterMasterGardeners
VCE JanetSpencer
SWCD Peanut
JamesCityCounty
PlanningInitiatives ComprehensivePlan,Parks&Recreation,GreenBuilding,BetterSiteDesign,CommunityCharacterCorridors,WatershedManagementPlans,StormwaterManagement/FloodplainManagement/HazardMitigation,ResidentialClusterDevelopment,WaterSupply/Conservation
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
JCSABeWaterSmart,PRIDEMini‐grants,CleanCountyCommissionGoodNeighborEnvironmentGrants,TurfLove‐GardenLoveRainGardenRebates,freepetwastestationsforneighborhoodsandcommunitygroups,Eco‐park,WilliamsburgLandConservancy.
TrainedStewards HistoricRiversMasterNaturalists,VoiCeS,WaterQualityMonitoring,TurfLove,MasterGardeners(AdvancedWaterStewardsandTreeStewards),JohnClaytonNativePlantSociety,LafayetteHighSchoolOysterGardeners
VCE BobWinters‐notextensionagent
SWCD Colonial
NGOs WilliamsburgLandConservancy,FriendsofPowhatanCreek,J4Cs,CBF,WetlandsWatch
Universities/Research W&M,VIMS
CityofNewportNewsPlanningInitiatives CitySustainabilityTeamandNNGreen,NewportNewsWaterworks
EnvironmentalStewardshipprogram,EnvironmentalManagementSystemandEnvironmentalPolicy,NewportNewsRedevelopment&HousingAuthority(NNRHA)CommunityDevelopmentDepartmentPlans,ReservoirProtection,EnhancedlakeProgram,UrbanTreeCanopy
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
CommunitySupportAgencyGrant,ResidentialRehabilitationPropertyTaxAbatementProgram,AdoptaTree,BeachErosionTechnicalAssistance,
StormwaterUtilityFee
Yes,rebateforparticipantsintheCityHouseholdHazardousChemicalsCollectionget15%stormwaterrebate.
TrainedStewards PeninsulaMasterNaturalists,MasterGardeners(AdvancedWaterStewards),VoiCeS,OysterGardeners
VCEagent MaryWright
NGOs NewportNewsGreenFoundation,CBF,WetlandsWatch
University/Research CNU,VIMS
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 6‐9
Table6‐1: SummaryofCollaborativePlanningEfforts,NGOs,andSWCDsbyLocality(continued)
CityofNorfolkPlanningInitiatives GreenCommittee,ComprehensivePlan,FloodMitigationStudy,Norfolk
EnvironmentalCommission,LafayetteRiverWatershedRestorationPlan,ElizabethRiverWatershedRestorationPlan,EnvironmentalOutreach,Sustainability/Environmental
StormwaterUtilityFee
Yes,norebate
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
CelebrateTrees,KeepNorfolkBeautiful,EARNN,RiverStarHomes,Schools,Businesses
UniversityResearchCollaboration
VIMS,ODU,
TrainedStewards MasterGardeners,TidewaterMasterNaturalists,VoiCeS
NGOs ElizabethRiverProject,ChesapeakeBayFoundation,WetlandsWatch,LafayetteWetlandsPartnership,
CityofPoquosonPlanningInitiatives ComprehensivePlan,HazardMitigationPlan
StormwaterUtilityFee
No
TrainedStewards MasterGardeners,PeninsulaTreeStewards,PeninsulaMasterNaturalist,CBFVoiCeS,Oystergardeners
NGOs PoquosonCitizensfortheEnvironment,PoquosonLionsClubTreePlantingCampaign
CityofPortsmouthPlanning ComprehensivePlan,Floodprotection/mitigation,ParadiseCreekGreenway
Plan,GreeningPortsmouth,Parks,Recreation&LeisureServicesMasterPlan,
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
RiverStarHomes,Schools,Businesses,NeighborhoodBeautificationProgram,
StormwaterUtilityFee
Yes,non‐residentialcreditforBMPs
TrainedStewards MasterGardeners,TidewaterMasterNaturalists,VoiCeS
NGOs ElizabethRiverProject,ChesapeakeBayFoundation,WetlandsWatch,HofflerCreekWildlifeFoundation
NGOprojects ParadiseCreekPark,ERPParadiseCreekbrownfieldsredevelopmentplan,RiverStarBusinesses
TownofSmithfieldPlanningInitiatives ComprehensivePlan,EntranceCorridorOverlayDistrictStreetScape,
SmithfieldSouthChurchStreetBeautificationProject
Stewards HistoricSouthsideMasterNaturalists,WesternTidewaterMasterGardeners
SWCD Colonial
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
6‐10 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Table6‐1: SummaryofCollaborativePlanningEfforts,NGOs,andSWCDsbyLocality(continued)
DetailsCityofSuffolkPlanningInitiatives ComprehensivePlan– FocusedGrowth,Zoningaroundsurfacewatersupplies,
StormwaterManagementBMPtrackingdatabase,UnifiedDevelopmentOrdinance,establishedwetlandsbanks,BlueWaterTrailmap,Pro‐ratastormwaterassessmentfornewdevelopmentandredevelopment
PotentialIncentivePartnershipsStormwaterUtilityFee
Yes,creditfornonresidentialstormwatermanagement
SWCD Peanut
TrainedStewards TidewaterMasterNaturalists,MasterGardeners(AdvancedWaterStewards),OysterGardeners,WaterQualityMonitoring
VCE Noagent
NGO NansemondRiverPreservationAlliance,OysterReefKeepersofVirginia,WetlandsWatch,LafayetteWetlandsPartnership,ERP,CBF
NGOprojects NRPA–OysterRestorationProject,CorporateRiverSaversProgram,RiverTalks,Raingarden/rainbarrel
Other LJHansenonCBPUrbanStormwaterCommittee
SurryCounty
PlanningIncentives ComprehensivePlan
TrainedStewards HistoricSouthsideMasterNaturalists,MasterGardeners(AdvancedWaterStewards)
SWCD Peanut
CityofVirginiaBeachPlanningInitiatives SustainabilityPlan,GreenRibbonCommittee,WaterQualityTaskForce,Sea
LevelRiseListeningSessions,IntegratedSiteDesign,CoastalPrimarySandDuneordinance,UrbanTreeCanopyStudy
StormwaterUtilityFee
Yes,nocredit
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
VirginiaBeachStewardshipAwardsProgram,FriendsofLiveOaks(givingawayliveoaktrees),PearlHomes,RiverStarHomes,Businesses,&Schools,VirginiaBeachBeautificationCommission,TheAwardsofBeautificationandConservationProgramsponsoredbytheCouncilofGardenClubsofVirginiaBeach,Inc.
TrainedStewards TidewaterMasterNaturalists,VirginiaBeachMasterGardeners(AdvancedWater&TreeStewards)
VCE LaurieFox(doesn’tcoordinateMGorMN)
SWCD VirginiaDare
NGOs BackBayRestorationFoundation,ChesapeakeBayFoundation,ElizabethRiverProject,LynnhavenRiverNOW,NorthLandingRiverkeepers,CitizensforStumpyLake,TheCrystalClub,RudeeInletFoundation,WetlandsWatch
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 6‐11
Table6‐1: SummaryofCollaborativePlanningEfforts,NGOs,andSWCDsbyLocality(continued)
DetailsCityofWilliamsburgPlanningInitiatives GreenWilliamsburg,CityOpenSpacePreservation,CountyResolutionon
Sustainability,NeighborhoodImprovementProgram
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
BeautificationAwards,HeritageTreeProgram,GreenResidentialandGreenBusinessChallenges
MasterNaturalists HistoricRiversMasterNaturalists,W&MWaterQualitySampling,MasterGardeners
University/Research W&MCommitteeonSustainability,GreeningWM,VIMs
NGOs WilliamsburgLandConservancy,ColonialWilliamsburg
SWCD Colonial
TownofWindsorPlanningInitiatives ComprehensivePlan,WaterSupply
YorkCounty
PlanningIncentives Watershedmanagementandprotectionareaoverlaydistrict,YorkCountyCleanandGreen,ParksandRecreation‐YorkCountyWetlandsInterpretativeSanctuaryforEducation(WISE),StormwaterAdvisoryCommittee
PotentialIncentivePartnerships
BeautificationCommittee– CleanBusinessAwards,Treegiveaways&plantings
SWCD Colonial
MasterNaturalists HistoricRiversMasterNaturalist,YorkCountyMasterGardeners,PeninsulaTreeStewards,CBFVoices,OysterGardeners
VCE DanNortman
NGOs YorkCountyWaterwaysAlliance
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
6‐12 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Section 7 – References
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 7‐1
7 References
7.1 Program‐Specific References
AnneArundelCounty,MD
AllianceforSustainableCommunities.StormwaterRestorationProject[video].BeinginPlace.CurrentCommunications,LLC,2011.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.beinginplace.org/html/environment_manhattan.html
AnneArundelCounty,MD.2011.AnneArundelCountyStormwaterManagementandErosionControlPropertyTaxCreditApplication.Web.http://www.aacounty.org/Finance/Resources/StormWaterMgmtTaxCredit.pdf
AnneArundelCounty,MD.2011.AnneArundelCountyStormWaterNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem.Web.http://www.aacounty.org/DPW/Watershed/2010NPDESMS4AnnualReport.pdf
AnneArundelCounty,MD.2011.AnneArundelCounty’sIntegratedReportofSurfaceWaterQualityandTMDLs2011.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.aacounty.org/DPW/Watershed/2011_303d_November.pdf
AnneArundelCounty,MD.2011.PhaseIIWatershedImplementationPlan.Web.http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/DRAFT_PhaseII_Report_Docs/County_Docs/AnneArundel_DraftPhIIWIP.pdf
AnneArundelCounty,MD.2011.StormwaterManagementTaxCreditListofQualifiedDevices.Rainscaping.org,n.d.Web.http://www.rainscaping.org/_ccLib/attachments/pages/AA+COUNTY+TAX+CREDIT‐Qualified+devices.pdf
AnneArundelCounty,MD.n.d.RestorationActivityCompletionReport.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.aacounty.org/DPW/Watershed/Restoration/RestoreActivityCompleteRpt.pdf
AnneArundelCounty,MD.DepartmentofPublicWorks.AnneArundelCountyWatershedEcosystemandRestorationServices(WERS)DivisionWatershedMappingApplication.GIS‐World,2011.Web.5Mar2012.http://gis‐world.aacounty.org/wers/
AnneArundelCountyWatershedStewardsAcademy.n.d.AnneArundelCountyWatershedStewardsAcademyAnnualReport2011.Web.7Mar2012http://www.aawsa.org/Download‐document/22‐2011‐Annual‐Report.html
AnneArundelCountyWatershedStewardsAcademy.MasterWatershedStewards.WatershedStewardsAcademy,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.aawsa.org/about‐us/about‐master‐watershed‐stewards.html
Lutz,Lara."Academyhelpscommunities'takeownershipoftheirstormwater’."ChesapeakeBayJournal21.9(2011):n.page.Web.5Mar.2012.http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=4243
Rainscaping.StormwaterIssues&Solutions.Rainscaping.org,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.rainscaping.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/home.showpage/pageID/34/index.htm
Section 7 – References
7‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
ArlingtonCounty,VA
ArlingtonCounty,VA.Arlington,AlexandriatoShare$485,000FederalGranttoRestoreWetlands,StreamBanksinTidalFourMileRun.ArlingtonCountyNewsroom,11June2011.Web.15Mar2012.http://news.arlingtonva.us/pr/ava/arlington‐alexandria‐to‐share‐207864.aspx
ArlingtonCounty,VA.ArlingtonCounty,Virginia,CountyBoardAgendaItem,MeetingofJune11,2011.Granicus.com,n.d.Web.15Mar.2012.http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=91479&view=&showpdf=1
ArlingtonCounty,VA.EnvironmentalServices.StormwaterMasterPlanUpdate.ArlingtonCounty,VA,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/Sustainability/page74076.aspx
ArlingtonCounty,VA.StormwaterWiseLandscapesProgram.ArlingtonCounty,VA,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/sustainability/page83039.aspx
ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment.ArlingtonCommunityWildlifeHabitatProjectOverview.ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.arlingtonenvironment.org/programs/wildlifehabitat/overview.htm
ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment.n.d.LivableNeighborhoodWaterStewardshipProgram.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/sustainability/PDFfiles/WST%20Brochure.pdf
ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment.TreeCanopyFund.ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.arlingtonenvironment.org/treecanopyfund.htm
ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment.WaterStewardshipProgram.ArlingtoniansforaCleanEnvironment,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.arlingtonenvironment.org/
Berger,Karl.2011.ChesapeakeBayWIPPhaseIIStatusintheCOGRegion,presentedtoPotomacRiverDWSSP,April26,2011[Presentationslides].PotomacRiverBasinDrinkingWaterSourceProtectionPartnership,n.d.Web.14Mar.2012.http://www.potomacdwspp.org/Meetings/Apr26‐2011/Berger_April26.pdf
EmpowermentInstitute.WaterStewardship.EmpowermentInstitute,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.empowermentinstitute.net/files/WSP.html#wsp_toc
McDonnell,JenniferandChristinJolicoeur.2012.TheStormwaterWiseLandscapesProgramsWebinar,Feb.1,2012[Presentationslides].ArlingtonCounty,VA,n.d.Web.15Mar2012.http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/sustainability/PDFfiles/file84798.pdf
NationalWildlifeFederation.CertifyYourWildlifeGarden.GardenforWildlife.NationalWildlifeFederation,n.d.Web.5Mar.2012.http://www.nwf.org/Get‐Outside/Outdoor‐Activities/Garden‐for‐Wildlife/Certify‐Your‐Wildlife‐Garden.aspx?campaignid=WH10A150
NorthernVirginiaCleanWaterPartners.NorthernVirginiaCleanWaterPartners.NorthernVirginiaCleanWaterPartners,2012.Web.http://www.onlyrain.org/
Section 7 – References
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 7‐3
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.StormwaterCaseStudiesSearchResults.NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES).UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,8June2007.Web.http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/casestudies_specific.cfm?case_id=15
CityofBowie,MD
Bowie,MD.2010.BowieEnvironmentalStewardshipSelf‐CertificationWorkbookforHouseholds.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.cityofbowie.org/GreenBowie/Envir_Stewardship_Workbook.pdf
ChesapeakeBayFoundationVoiCeSProgram
ChesapeakeBayFoundation.PARTICIPATE:VoiCeS(VolunteersasChesapeakeStewards.ChesapeakeBayFoundation,n.d.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.cbf.org/page.aspx?pid=545
ElizabethRiverProject–CitiesofPortsmouth,Norfolk,andChesapeake,VA
ChesapeakeBayFoundation.RestorationPlanAnnouncedforLafayetteRiver[Pressrelease].ChesapeakeBayFoundation,27April2011.Web.31Mar2012.http://www.cbf.org/page.aspx?pid=2468
ElizabethRiverProject.n.d.2010‐2011Achievements,RiverStarSchools&YouthOrganizations.Web.31Mar2012.http://www.elizabethriver.org/PDFs/RiverStarSchools/2010‐2011RSSchools‐Achievements.pdf
ElizabethRiverProject.LafayetteRiverRestoration.ElizabethRiverProject,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.elizabethriver.org/Projects/Lafayette%20River%20Restoration.aspx
ElizabethRiverProject.ParadiseCreek…Cleaningthebayonecreekatatime.ElizabethRiverProject,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.elizabethriver.org/Projects/Paradise_Creek.aspx
ElizabethRiverProject.Program,RiverStarBusinessRecognitionLuncheon,January27,2011.ElizabethRiverProject,n.d.Web.http://www.elizabethriver.org/PDFs/RiverStarIndustries/rs_luncheon_prog_Jan2011.pdf
ElizabethRiverProject.RiverStarsRoster….ElizabethRiverProject,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.elizabethriver.org/RiverStars/RiverStarsRoster.aspx
KeepNorfolkBeautiful.E.A.R.N.N.KeepNorfolkBeautiful,2010.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.norfolkbeautiful.org/earnn
TheLivingRiverRestorationTrust.LivingRiverRestorationTrust.TheLivingRiverRestorationTrust,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.livingrivertrust.org/
FriendsoftheRappahannock
FriendsoftheRappahannock.2004.StaffordCounty,VirginiaRappahannockTributariesWatershedPlanningStudy.Web.6Mar2012http://www.riverfriends.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=G0IJXlziCYk%3D&tabid=72&mid=429orhttp://www.riverfriends.org/Portals/0/Stafford%20Tributaries%20Final%20Report.pdf
Section 7 – References
7‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
FriendsoftheRappahannock.TakeActionNow.FriendsoftheRappahannock,2006‐2013.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.riverfriends.org/
JamesCityCounty,VA
JamesCityCounty,VA.1999.JamesCityCountyGuidelinesforDesignandConstructionofStormwaterManagementBMPs.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.jccegov.com/pdf/devtmgmtpdfs/Environmental/BMPManual_abbreviated_1999.pdf
JamesCityCounty,VA.2001.PowhatanCreekWatershedManagementPlan,November2001,Final.PreparedbyCenterforWatershedProtection.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.jccegov.com/pdf/devtmgmtpdfs/Environmental/Powhatan%20Web%20Documents/PowhatanFinalintro.pdf
JamesCityCounty,VA.2012.Memorandum,DepartmentofConservationandRecreation–GrantAward–$150,000.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.jccegov.com/pdf/bospdfs/bospdfs2006/072506bos/g7_mem.pdf
JamesCityCounty,VA.n.d.StormwaterManagementinJamesCityCounty,Virginia.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.jccegov.com/pdf/devtmgmtpdfs/Environmental/stormwater.rev1.pdf
JamesCityCounty,VA.2004.StormwaterTaskGroup,BoardofSupervisorsWorkSession,November23,2004[Presentationslides].Web.6Mar2012.http://www.jccegov.com/pdf/bospdfs/bospdfs2004/112304readfile/A1_slides.pdf
JamesCityCounty,VA.EnvironmentalDivision.2003.Memorandum,Formation of a Special Stormwater Criteria Task Group as Recommended in the Powhatan Creek Watershed Management Plan.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.jccegov.com/pdf/bospdfs/bospdfs2003/032503ws/c3_att2.pdf
JamesCityCounty,VA.GeneralServices.PleasetakePRIDEinJCCandhelpusprotectourwatersheds.JamesCityCounty,VA,n.d.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.protectedwithpride.org/
JamesCityCounty,VA.JamesCityServiceAuthority.JCSAWaterConservationRebatePrograms.JamesCityCounty,VA,n.d.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.bewatersmart.org/RebatePrograms/rebatesintroduction.html
JamesCityCounty/WilliamsburgMasterGardeners.LandscapeLoveProgram.JamesCityCountyandCityofWilliamsburgMasterGardeners,n.d.Web.6Mar2012.http://jccwmg.org/llove.htm
JamesCityCounty/WilliamsburgMasterGardeners.TurfLove/GardenLoveProgram.JamesCityCountyandCityofWilliamsburgMasterGardeners,n.d.Web.6Mar2012.http://jccwmg.org/turflove.htm
LynnhavenRiverNOW–CityofVirginiaBeach,VA
Burke,D.G.andJ.E.Dunn(editors).2010.ASustainableChesapeake:BetterModelsforConservation.TheConservationFund.Web.31Mar2012.http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/The_Conservation_Fund_Chesapeake_Bay_Better_Models_for_Conservation_Chapt_5_Lynnhaven_River_NOW.pdf
Section 7 – References
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 7‐5
LynnhavenRiverNOW.n.d.2010StateoftheRiverReport.Web.http://www.lynnhavenrivernow.org/files/pages/state_of_the_river_report_2010_final.pdf
LynnhavenRiverNOW.GardeningandLawnCare.LynnhavenRiverNOW,2011.Web.5Mar2012.http://lynnhavenrivernow.org/gardening.aspxi
LynnhavenRiverNOW.LynnhavenLandscapers.LynnhavenRiverNOW,2012.Web.5Mar.2012.http://lynnhavenrivernow.org/pages/207/default.aspx
VirginiaBeach,VA.CleanWaterTaskForce.CityofVirginiaBeach,2011.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.vbgov.com/government/offices/eso/boards‐commissions/Pages/clean‐waters‐task.aspx
VirginiaBeach,VA.Watershed‐FriendlyLandscapeWorkshopPresentations.CityofVirginiaBeach,VA,2011.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.vbgov.com/government/offices/eso/watershed‐workshop/Pages/default.aspx
MontgomeryCounty,MD
ECONorthwest.2011.EconomicBenefitsofGreenInfrastructure,ChesapeakeBayRegion,December2011,FinalDraft.Web.29Mar.2012.http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/reports‐and‐publications/20498‐chesapeake‐final‐2011‐1213.pdf
MontgomeryCounty,MD.2011.AnnualReportfor2010NPDESMunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystemPermit.Web.6Mar.2012.http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dep/downloads/NPDES_Annual_Report_Jan_July12010.pdf
MontgomeryCountyMD.LandscapeProfessionals.DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.MontgomeryCountyMD,2011.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dectmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/water/rainlandscaping.asp#courses
MontgomeryCountyMD.2011.MontgomeryCountyCoordinatedImplementationStrategy,Draft.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dep/downloads/Countywide_CIS_Draft_Combined_021611.pdf
MontgomeryCountyMD.2011.MontgomeryCountyMDMS4PhaseI/IIWIPContributions.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/DRAFT_PhaseII_Report_Docs/County_Docs/Montgomery_DraftPhIIWIP.pdf
MontgomeryCounty,MD.n.d.RainGardens.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dep/downloads/MocoRainGardens.pdf
MontgomeryCountyMD.WaterQualityProtectionCharge.DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.MontgomeryCountyMaryland,2011.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dectmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/water/wqpc.asp
Section 7 – References
7‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
ReedyCreekCoalitionandCityofRichmond,VA
ReedyCreekCoalition.FinancialIncentiveProgram.ReedyCreekCoalition,n.d.Web.6Mar2012.http://reedycreekcoalition.org/financial‐incentive‐program/
Richmond,VA.StormwaterCredits.DepartmentofPublicUtilities.CityofRichmond,n.d.Web.6Mar2012http://www.richmondgov.com/publicutilities/StormwaterCredits.aspx
CityofRockville,MD
Rockville,MD.2010.RainScapesConservationLandscaping,AResidentialStormwaterManagementTool.Web.6Mar.2012http://www.rockvillemd.gov/environment/watersheds/ConservationLandscapingPowerPoint2010.pdf
SoilandWaterConservationDistricts
FairfaxCounty,VA.NorthernVirginiaSoilandWaterConservationDistrict.FairfaxCounty,VA,n.d.Web.6Mar2012.http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/nvswcd/
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources.DivisionofSoilandWaterConservation.CommunityConservationAssistanceProgram.DivisionofSoilandWaterConservation,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.enr.state.nc.us/dswc/pages/ccap_program.html
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources.DivisionofSoilandWaterConservation.2011.CommunityConservationAssistanceProgram:FrequentlyAskedQuestions.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.enr.state.nc.us/dswc/pages/ccapbrochure2008.pdf
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources.DivisionofSoilandWaterConservation.n.d..DivisionofSoilandWaterConservationAnnualReport,July'09‐June'10.Web.5Mar2012.http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=4d277788‐867e‐4718‐97fa‐b091370fd2d6&groupId=38358
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources.DivisionofSoilandWaterConservation.2011.InstructionsforCompletingConservationPlanofOperationSummary(Nc‐Acsp‐11a).Web.6Mar.2012.http://www.enr.state.nc.us/dswc/pages/ACSP‐11A‐07‐2008.doc
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources.DivisionofSoilandWaterConservation.2007. North Carolina CCAP Program Manual. Web.5Mar.2012.
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources.DivisionofSoilandWaterConservation.n.d.StormwaterBestManagementPracticeDesignManual.PreparedbyNorthCarolinaStateUniversity.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.enr.state.nc.us/dswc/pages/2007_July_DSWC_Manual.pdf
UrbanTrees
VirginiaTechDepartmentofForestResourcesandEnvironmentalConservation.VirginiaGeospatialExtensionProgram.2011.AReportontheCityofPortsmouth'sExistingandPossibleUrbanTreeCanopy.Web.7Mar2012.http://cnre.vt.edu/gep/UTC/UTC_Report_Portsmouth.pdf
Section 7 – References
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 7‐7
VirginiaTechDepartmentofForestResourcesandEnvironmentalConservation.VirginiaGeospatialExtensionProgram.2011.UrbanTreeCanopyAnalysisofVirginiaLocalities.Web.7Mar2012.http://gep.frec.vt.edu/va_utc.html.
VirginiaStateWaterQualityImplementationFundGrants
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2010.VirginiaWaterQualityImprovementFundandtheCooperativeNonpointSourcePollutionProgram.Web.7Mar2012.http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/417b54be6be72ac5852575c9006adfd2/$FILE/RD322.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2011.GrantProjectManagementManual.Web.7Mar2012.http://dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/documents/2011_DCR‐DSWC%20Grant%20Management%20Manual.pdf
Washington,DC
AnacostiaWatershedSociety.2011.GreenRoofRebateProgram2011‐12,Application&RebateProcess.Web.http://www.anacostiaws.org/userfiles/file/Green%20Roofs/1%20‐%20App.%20%20Process%20‐%209.22.11.pdf
DistrictofColumbia.DepartmentoftheEnvironment.2011.DistrictofColumbiaChesapeakeBayTMDLDraftPhase2WatershedImplementationPlan.Web.http://ddoe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/publication/attachments/DC_Chesapeake_Bay_Draft_Phase_2_WIP.pdf
DistrictofColumbia.DepartmentoftheEnvironment.2012.FY11AccomplishmentsReport,GreenForward.Web.http://ddoe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/publication/attachments/DDOE%20Accomplishments%20Report%202011.pdf
DistrictofColombia.DepartmentoftheEnvironment.GreenUpDC.DistrictofColombia,2011.Web.5Mar2012.http://204.227.14.49/solar/washingtondc/Default.aspx
DistrictofColombia.DepartmentoftheEnvironment.RiverSmartHomes.DistrictofColumbia,,n.d.Web.5Mar2012.http://ddoe.dc.gov/riversmarthomes
Guillaume,Jenny.n.d.RiverSmartHomes,ACleanWaterStartsinYourYard[Presentationslides].SlideShare,27July2010.Web.5Mar.2012.http://www.slideshare.net/Bobette1031/river‐smart‐homes‐presentation
NationalCapitalRegionWatershedStewardsAcademy.WatershedStewardsAcademy.NationalCapitalRegionWatershedStewardsAcademy,n.d.Web.http://ncr‐wsa.org/
RiverSmartWashington.AbouttheProgram.RockCreekConservancy,Inc.,2012.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.rockcreekconservancy.org/index.php/about‐the‐program‐riversmart
RiverStarHomes:GettingSmartAboutRunoffinWashington,DC[video].YouTube,2011.Web.5Mar2012.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZGI3g7tJEQ
Section 7 – References
7‐8 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
7.2 General References
Bulova,DavidandAndreaW.Wortzel.2011.“TheChesapeakeBayTMDL:ManagingOurWaterResources–WhereWaterQualityandWaterQuantityCollide.”JournalofLocalGovernmentLaw22.2.Hunton&Williams,n.d.Web.15Mar2012.http://www.hunton.com/files/Publication/e73c37c1‐6f46‐4eba‐94d0‐3751879de845/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/753bf229‐1e0d‐4409‐8bd9‐eb474cd56705/Chesapeake_Bay_TMDL.pdf
CenterforWatershedProtection.2011.UrbanSubwatershedRestorationManualSeries.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html:
****Note:youmustjointhiswebsiteinordertodownloadmanualslistedbelow****
CenterforWatershedProtection.2009.StormwaterBMPsinVirginia’sJamesRiverBasin:AnAssessmentofFieldConditions&Program.Web.21Apr2012.http://www.cwp.org/documents/cat_view/76‐stormwater‐management‐publications.html
Kitchell,A.andTomSchueler.2005.UrbanSubwatershedManual10:UnifiedStreamAssessment:AUser’sManual.CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html#Manual1
Novotney,M.andR.Winer.2008.UrbanSubwatershedManual9:MunicipalPollutionPrevention/GoodHousekeepingPracticesVersion1.0.CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html#Manual1
Schueler,Tom.2005.UrbanSubwatershedRestorationManualNo.1:AnIntegratedFrameworktoRestoreSmallUrbanWatersheds(Version2.0).CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html#Manual1
Schueler,TomandK.Brown.2004.UrbanSubwatershedRestorationManual4:UrbanStreamRepairPracticesVersion1.0.CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html#Manual1
Schueler,TomandA.Kitchell.2005.UrbanSubwatershedRestorationManual2:MethodstoDevelopRestorationPlansforSmallUrbanWatershed.CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html#Manual1
Schueler,Tom,D.Hirschman,M.Novotney,andJ.Zielinski.2007.UrbanSubwatershedRestorationManual3:UrbanStormwaterRetrofitPracticesVersion1.0.CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html#Manual1
Schueler,Tom,andC.Swann,T.Wright,andS.Sprinkle.2005.UrbanSubwatershedManual8:PollutionPreventionPracticesVersion2.0.CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html#Manual1
Section 7 – References
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 7‐9
Wright,T.andC.Swann,K.Cappiella,T.Schueler.2005.UrbanSubwatershedManual11:UnifiedSubwatershedandSiteReconnaissance:AUser’sManual.CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/92‐urban‐subwatershed‐restoration‐manual‐series.html#Manual1
CenterforWatershedProtection.Forestry.CenterforWatershedProtection,2010.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.cwp.org/categoryblog/98‐forestry.html
HamptonRoadsPlanningDistrictCommission.2010.AGreenInfrastructurePlanfortheHamptonRoadsRegion.Web.16Mar2012.http://hrpdc.org/Documents/Phys%20Planning/2010/HRGreenInfrastructure2010.pdf
King,DennisandPatrickHagan.2011.CostsofStormwaterManagementPracticesinMarylandCounties.UniversityofMarylandCenterforEnvironmentalScience.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/King_Hagan_Stormwater%20Cost%20Report%20to%20MDE_Final%20Draft_12Oct2011.pdf
MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment.2011.AccountingforStormwaterWasteloadAllocationsandImperviousAcresTreated(draft).Web.7Mar2012.http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/StormwaterManagementProgram/Documents/NPDES%20Draft%20Guidance%206_14.pdf
MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment.2011.IncorporatingUnapprovedPracticesinthePhaseIIWIP.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/Binder/MD_PhaseII_BMP_approval_protocol.pdf
Mid‐AtlanticWaterProgram.MS4PhaseIIStormwaterManagerTraining.Mid‐AtlanticWaterProgram,n.d.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/swmanagement.htm.
Schueler,Tom.2011,September15.IncreasingtheDeliveryofResidentialStewardshipPracticesinUrbanWatersheds[Presentationslides].Web.http://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/ResidentialStewardshipWebcast2011.htm
Schueler,Tom.2011,August18.StormwaterRetrofitstoMaximizeNutrientReduction[Presentationslides].Web.http://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/SWRetrofitsWebcast2011.htm
Schueler,TomandTedScott.2011,August11.LIDChangesEverything:TheNewStormwaterMaintenanceParadigm[Presentationslides].Web.http://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/LIDMaintenanceWebcast2011.htm
Schueler,Tom.2011,July28.SurvivingYourLocalWIP:APracticalGuidetoNutrientAccountingfortheChesapeakeBayTMDL[Presentationslides].Web.http://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/SWTMDLWebcast2011.htm
Schueler,Tom.2010,June10.HandlingESDatRedevelopmentSitesinMaryland[Presentationslides].Web.http://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/ESDRedevelopmentWebcast.htm
Section 7 – References
7‐10 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Schueler,Tom.2010,May13.EnvironmentalSiteDesign:PracticesandToolstoVerifyOn‐siteCompliance[Presentationslides].Web.http://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/ESDToolsWebcast.htm
NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,ChesapeakeBayOffice.ChesapeakeBayRegionalEstuarineEcologyModel.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,,n.d.Web.7Mar2012.http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/ecosystem‐modeling/chesapeake‐bay‐regional‐estuarine‐ecosystem‐model
NorthernVirginiaRegionalCommission,2011.ChesapeakeBayTMDLPhaseIIWIPFactSheet.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.novaregion.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2961
Rowe,PamandTomSchueler.2006.TheSmartWatershedBenchmarkingTool.CenterforWatershedProtection.Web.http://www.stormwaterpa.org/assets/media/resources/ELC_SWBT.pdf
Schueler,Tom.2009.CSNTechnicalBulletinNo.2,StormwaterDesignintheCoastalPlainoftheChesapeakeBayWatershed,Version1.0.ChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork.Web.6Mar2012.http://chesapeakestormwater.net/wp‐content/uploads/downloads/2012/01/CSN20TB20No20220Coastal20Plain3.pdf
Schueler,Tom.2011.CSNTechnicalBulletinNo.9,NutrientAccountingMethodstoDocumentLocalStormwaterLoadReductionsintheChesapeakeBayWatershed,Version0.8ReviewDraft.ChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork.Web.6Mar2012.http://chesapeakestormwater.net/wp‐content/plugins/download‐monitor/download.php?id=116
Sellner,Kevin.2009.ModelsoftheChesapeakeBasin[Presentationslides].Web.http://ches.communitymodeling.org/downloads/KSClass102209.pdf.
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.2005.NationalManagementMeasurestoControlNonpointSourcePollutionfromUrbanAreas(EPA‐841‐B‐05‐004).Web.7Mar2012.http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban/index.cfm;http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban/upload/2005_12_08_NPS_urbanmm_urban_guidance.pdf"
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.2010.ChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoadforNitrogen,PhosphorusandSediment.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/CBayFinalTMDLSection5_final.pdf
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.2010.ChesapeakeBayTMDL.Web.http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.html
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.2010.ChesapeakeBayTMDL,AppendixP.SettingtheSAV/WaterClarityCriteriaBasedSedimentAllocations.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/AppendixPChlabasedSedAllocationsforJamesR_final.pdf
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.NationalMenuofStormwaterBestManagementPractices.NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES).UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,2012.Web.7Mar2012.http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/
Section 7 – References
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | 7‐11
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.ChesapeakeBayProgram.2006.BestManagementPracticesforSedimentControlandWaterClarityEnhancement(CBP/TRS‐282‐06).Web.http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_13369.pdf
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.ChesapeakeBayProgram.2010.ChesapeakeBayPhase5CommunityWatershedModelInpreparation(EPAXXX‐X‐XX‐010).”Web.7Mar2012.http://www.chesapeakebay.net/about/programs/modeling/53/
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.ChesapeakeBayProgram.2010.EstimatesofCounty‐LevelNitrogenandPhosphorusDataforUseinModelingPollutantReduction,DocumentationforScenarioBuilderVersion2.2.Web.7Mar2012.ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/modeling/P5Documentation/SB_V22_Final_12_31_2010.pdf
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.ChesapeakeBayProgram.2011.DefinitionsofBMPCategoriesandTypes.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.jccegov.com/pdf/tmdl/Definitions%20of%20BMP%20Categories%20and%20Types.pdf
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.ChesapeakeBayProgram.ModelingSubcommittee.1998.ChesapeakeBayWatershedModelApplicationandCalculationofNutrientandSedimentLoadings,AppendixH:TrackingBestManagementPracticeNutrientReductionsintheChesapeakeBayProgram.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12439.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2003.RiparianBuffersModificationandMitigationGuidanceManual.(Reprinted2006).Web.20April2012.http://dcr.cache.vi.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/documents/BufferManual_06Rev.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2009.Draft2009VirginiaStormwaterManagementHandbook.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/lr2i.shtml
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2009.IntroductiontotheNewVirginiaStormwaterDesignSpecifications.Web.7Mar2012.http://vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/OctoberUpdates/Intro%20for%20New%20VA%20SWM%20BMP%20Design%20Specs_Final_5Oct09.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2009.StormwaterManagementandUrbanBMPs.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/documents/Chapter_2.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2010.GoalsforNewBMPsby2017.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/vabaytmdl/documents/baytmdlsag2locgoalsbmps.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2010.Section6Urban/SuburbanStormwater.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/baywip/wipsection6.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.2010.VirginiaPhaseIIWIPStrategiesDocument.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/vabaytmdl/documents/baytmdlstrattempl.xlsx
Section 7 – References
7‐12 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.n.d.LocalWatershedManagementPlanninginVirginia,ACommunityWaterQualityApproach.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/documents/wshedguideb2b.pdf
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.RunoffReductionMethod.VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation,29Mar2011.Web.7Mar2012.http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/lr2f.shtml
VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation.VirginiaApprovedStormwaterBMPStandardsandSpecifications.VirginiaStormwaterBMPClearingHouse.VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreation,2009.Web.7Mar2012.http://vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/StandardsSpecs.html
Appendix A
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | A‐1
APPENDIXA
GENERALACTIVITYLOGANDCONTACTS
JunetoSeptember2011–ConductedaseriesofinformationalinterviewstoidentifyexistingEnvironmentalstewardshipprogramsandprofessionallandscapetrainingprograms.Attendedthe2011ChesapeakeWatershedForuminShepherdstown,WestVirginia(September29–October1,2011)includinga2‐dayWorkshoponCommunityBasedSocialMarketingbyDougMcKenzie‐Mohr.http://www.chesapeakenetwork.org/library.htm?mode=viewParticipatedintheChesapeakeBayStormwaterTrainingPartnership(CBSTP)MS4PhaseIIWatershedManagerTrainingSerieswhichcanbeviewedathttp://www.mawaterquality.org/capacity_building/swmanagement.htmAppointedtotheCBPMasterWatershedStewardsActionTeamseehttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/groups/group/master_watershed_stewards_action_teamandjoinedtheNativePlantsMarketingGrouporganizedbytheVirginiaCoastalZoneManagementProgram.Conductedinformationalinterviewswith
localVirginiaCooperativeExtensionAgents(LaurieFoxandSusanFrench)andStateDirectorsoftheVirginiaMasterNaturalists(MichellePrysby)andVirginiaMasterGardeners(DavidClose)Programs,
Localandregionalnon‐profitgroupsengagedinpromotingenvironmentalstewardshipandwatershedfriendlyactionsonprivatepropertyincludingJoeRiegeroftheElizabethRiverProject(ERP),KarenForgetofLynnhavenRiverNOW(LRNOW),CraigMetcalfeandAnnHewitt,FriendsofPowhatanCreek,ChristieEverettofChesapeakeBayFoundation(CBF),andChrisFrenchformerlyofAlliancefortheChesapeakeBay(ABC).
DirectorsoftheCBNERRS(SandraErdle)andGBNERRSprograms, KateVenturini,UniversityofRhodeIslandOutreachCenterandLandscapeRestoration
Program,whodevelopedaNativePlantsSystemsDesignManualofCoastalBuffersforRhodeIsland.
SuzanneEtgen,DirectoroftheAnneArundelCountyWatershedStewardsAcademyandKitGageco‐directoroftheNationalCapitalAreaWatershedStewardsAcademy.
CarolHeiser,EducationProgramSectionManagerandHabitatEducationCoordinatorforVADept.ofGameandInlandFisheries(VDGIF)andmemberoftheChesapeakeConservationLandscapingCouncil
JulieWinters,EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)specialassistanttoJeffCorbin,ChesapeakeBayProgram(CBP)MasterWatershedStewardsActionTeamCo‐Chair,CoordinatoroftheEPANFWFfunding,andAnneArundelCountyMasterWatershedSteward.
AmyHandenoftheNationalParkService(NPS),CBPMasterWatershedStewardActionTeamCo‐Chair,andCoordinatestheNPSNFWFfunding.
TomSchueler,theauthorofanumberofdocumentsbytheChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork(CSN)andtheCenterforWatershedProtection(CWP)andaseriesofCBSTP
Appendix A
A‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
webcaststhatprovideguidanceonwatershedandhabitatrestoration,watershedandstormwatermanagement,WatershedImplementationPlan(WIP)andBayTMDLstrategiesfortheChesapeakeBayRegion.Mr.SchuelerispastdirectoroftheCenterforWatershed(CWP),currentdirectoroftheChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork(CSN),andoftheEPACBPStormwaterCoordinator.
LucindaPowerswiththeEPACBPandassistanttoTomSchueler.November–EarlyDecember2011:
GaveaWatershedStewardshiptalkattheannualmeetingoftheJamesCityCounty/WilliamsburgMasterGardeners.
ContactedScottThomas(EngineeringandNaturalResources)andFranGeissler(StormwaterDirector)andPRIDEprogramcoordinatorsinJamesCityCounty,VA
MetwithAmandaBassowandBrendanMcIntyreofNationalFishandWildlifeFoundation(NFWF)–requestedandwasprovidedwithNFWFrecordsofpastandcurrentgrantprojectsintheHamptonRoadsRegionandanycontactinformationandBMPdataassociatedwiththegrantprojects.
MetwithJulieWinters,AmyHanden,TomSchueler,andLucindaPowers MetwithVernaHarrison,executivedirector,andJulieHester,programofficer,ofthe
KeithCampbellFoundationandtheChesapeakeFundersNetwork. Conductedoutreachtonon‐profitorganizationsinanefforttocatalogexistingBMPsand
furtherrefineinformationprovidedbyNFWFincludingLynnhavenRiverNOW,ElizabethRiverProject,PRIDE,TurfLove,andJCSA,LafayetteWetlandsPartnership,ColonialSoilandWaterConservationDistrict.
December2011–February2012
Conductedinformationalinterviewseitherinperson,viaphoneorthroughemailcorrespondencewithVirginiaDCRStaff;localstormwater,environmental,and/orsustainabilitystafffromtheCitiesofVirginiaBeach,Chesapeake,Norfolk,Suffolk,andHampton,YorkandJamesCityCounties;LafayetteWetlandsPartnership,ERP,LRNOW,CBF,VirginiaCooperativeExtensionAgentsinJamesCityCounty,Hampton,andVirginiaBeach;WilliamsburgEnvironmentalGroup,CWP,alocalnursery,locallandscapeprofessionals,ColonialSoilandWaterConservationDistrict.
AttendedandparticipatedintheLafayetteRiverSteeringCommittee. Continuedonlineresearch,revieweddocuments,andinterviewprogramcoordinators
associatedwithvoluntaryandmandatedprivatepropertystormwatermanagementprogramsandpractices,includingfinancialincentiveprogramsandutilitycredits.
PreparedapresentationforandconductedaHamptonRoadsWatershedRoundtableWorkshop.TheworkshopincludedatouroftheVirginiaZoo,andfacilitateddiscussionswithattendees.
AttendedaGreenInfrastructureTrainingWorkshopbytheCBNERRSprogramatVIMS.
Appendix B
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | B‐1
APPENDIXB
MONTGOMERYCOUNTY,MARYLANDRAINSCAPESPROGRAMOVERVIEW
Appendix B
B‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Appendix C
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | C‐1
APPENDIXC
LYNNHAVENRIVERNOWWATER‐FRIENDLYRECOMMENDEDPRACTICES
Appendix C
C‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix D
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | D‐1
APPENDIXD
EXAMPLESOFLANDSCAPINGWORKSHOPS
Appendix D
D‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix E
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | E‐1
APPENDIXE
ADDITIONALGREENSTREETANDON‐SITELIDRETROFITSUMMARYTABLESANDFIGURES
Note:ThefollowingaremiscellaneoustablesandfiguresfromUrbanSubwatershedRestorationManual3,UrbanStormwaterRetrofitPractices,andAppendices(fromSchueler,Hirschman,Novotney,andZielinski,2007).
Appendix E
E‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix E
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | E‐3
Appendix E
E‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix E
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | E‐5
Appendix E
E‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix F
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | F‐1
APPENDIXF
CHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMWATERQUALITYGOALIMPLEMENTATIONTEAMPROTOCOL
Appendix F
F‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix F
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | F‐3
Appendix F
F‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix F
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | F‐5
Appendix F
F‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Appendix G
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | G‐1
APPENDIXG
CBPURBANTREEPLANTINGEXPERTPANELCONSIDERATIONS
Appendix G
G‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix G
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | G‐3
Appendix G
G‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
(Thispageintentionallyleftblank.)
Appendix H
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | H‐1
APPENDIXH
RETROFITSANDREFORESTATIONGUIDANCEFROMCSNTECHNICALBULLETINNO.9
All information provided in this Appendix is taken directly from Schueler, Tom (2011) CSN Technical Bulletin No. 9 Nutrient Accounting Methods to Document Local Stormwater Load Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Version 1.0 REVIEW DRAFT, August 15, 2011. 5.3.1 STORMWATER RETROFITS Status: This is a new urban BMP rate and will be the subject of a BMP Expert Panel that is scheduled to conclude in 2012. It is recommended that the proposed method be accepted on an interim basis during the WIP planning process, until such time as the Expert Panel makes its final recommendation. Definition: Stormwater retrofits are a diverse group of projects that provide nutrient and sediment reduction on existing development that is currently untreated by any BMP or is inadequately treated by an existing BMP. Stormwater retrofits can be classified into five broad project categories, as shown below: 1. New retrofit facilities 2. BMP conversions 3. BMP enhancements 4. Green street retrofits 5. On-site LID retrofits Technical Issues: Retrofits can be problematic when it comes to defining a nutrient removal rate. For example:
Every retrofit project is unique to some degree, depending on the drainage area it treats, the treatment mechanism(s) it employs, the runoff volume it captures, and the degree of prior stormwater treatment at the site, if any.
Many retrofits are under-sized in comparison to new BMPs designed to new
development standards, due to site constraints. Some adjustment in pollutant removal capability is needed to account for situations where they cannot capture and treat the water quality volume.
There is virtually no research available specifically for stormwater retrofits, so
removal rates needs to be inferred from other known BMP and runoff reduction performance data.
Many retrofits employ innovative combinations of runoff treatment mechanisms and
may not be easily classified according to the existing CBP- approved BMP removal rates.
Appendix H
H‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Localities often evaluate dozens or even hundreds of candidate projects during retrofit investigations to find the best ones. Therefore, localities will need fairly simple protocols to estimate pollutant reduction achieved by individual retrofits projects as part of their watershed assessment and retrofit investigation.
Recommended Overall Protocol to Define Retrofit Removal Rate The general protocol to define retrofit removal rates is as follows: Step 1: Compute the baseline load for the drainage area to the proposed retrofit using the Simple Method (Schueler, 1987), the Virginia spreadsheet (CWP, 2009) or the unit nutrient load method (MDE, 2011). All three methods closely track the Bay Model projections for baseline nutrient loads for urban and suburban lands. Step 2: Select the appropriate method to define a project-specific retrofit removal rate, based on its appropriate retrofit classification. Step 3: Adjust removal rates using the runoff capture method if retrofit is under-sized Step 4: Multiply the adjusted retrofit removal rate by the pre-retrofit baseline load to obtain the pounds of nutrients reduced by the project. New retrofit facilities: This category includes new retrofit projects that create storage to reduce nutrients from existing developed land that is not currently receiving any stormwater treatment. Common examples of new retrofits include creating new storage upstream of roadway crossings, near existing stormwater outfalls, within the existing stormwater conveyance system or adjacent to large parking lots. Desktop and field methods for discovering opportunities for new retrofits are described in Schueler (2009). There are two options to define removal rates for this class of retrofit projects: CBP Rate Option: If the new retrofit project can be classified into one of the existing CBP urban BMP categories and has enough treatment volume to treat the runoff from at least one inch of rainfall, then the appropriate CBP approved rates should be used (i.e., Table 21). Stormwater Retrofit Removal Rate Adjustor. If the retrofit is over or under-sized, or utilizes treatment mechanisms or design enhancements that cannot be classified under current CBP urban BMP categories, then designers should determine the actual rainfall depth controlled and degree of runoff reduction achieved by their retrofit project, and select the appropriate mass removal rate from Table 22. Some additional guidance for using Table 22 includes:
Designers may interpolate between the rainfall depths if their new retrofit project has a non-standard rainfall depth controlled.
High removal rates (HI) are assigned to new retrofit projects that achieve at least 50% reduction of the annual runoff volume through canopy interception, soil amendments,
Appendix H
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | H‐3
evaporation, rainfall harvesting, engineered infiltration, extended filtration or evapotranspiration.
The low removal rate (LO) should be used if the new retrofit employs a permanent pool, constructed wetlands or filtering as the primary runoff treatment mechanism.
BMP conversions are a fairly common and cost-effective retrofit approach where an existing BMP is converted into a different BMP that employs more effective treatment mechanism(s) to enhance nutrient reduction. Most BMP conversions involve retrofits of existing stormwater ponds, such as converting a dry detention pond into a constructed wetland (although many other types of BMP conversions are possible). Guidance on pond retrofits can be found in Profile Sheet SR-1 in Schueler (2009). There are three options to define removal rates for BMP conversion projects: Incremental Improvement Method. Most older stormwater ponds can be classified according to CBP-approved urban BMP rates, so it is relatively straightforward to compute an incremental rate based on the difference between the old and new CBP BMP removal rate. For example, if a dry ED pond is converted into a wet pond, the phosphorus removal rate would increase from 20% to 45%, which would result in a net 25% removal due to the conversion retrofit. Incremental Improvement for Maryland Design by Era Method. An incremental rate can also be derived based on the age of the BMP being converted. MDE (2011) assigns unique nutrient and sediment removal rates for each of the four design eras it has established (see Table 24 in Section 5.3.5). In this case, designers simply calculate the incremental difference in removal rates for the more recent design era compared to the earlier design era, and then multiply it by the baseline load delivered to the original BMP. Incremental Rate Using Stormwater Retrofit Adjustor. The last method for BMP conversions is to use Table 22 to define a project specific mass removal rate for the original BMP and the proposed conversion based on the net change in rainfall depth controlled and degree of runoff reduction achieved. This method is recommended when the proposed BMP conversion utilizes LID practices; increases total treatment volume and/or involves major design enhancements. Enhance Existing BMPs: This retrofit category applies to projects whereby the basic treatment mechanism of the existing BMP is not changed, but its nutrient reduction capability is enhanced by increasing its treatment volume and/or increasing the hydraulic retention time within the practice. BMP enhancements are a good strategy on older and larger ponds and wetlands built under less stringent sizing and design standards. BMP enhancement may also be a good strategy for the first generation of bioretention and filtering practices, whose original design lacked the features now known to enhance nutrient removal. An example of a retrofit enhancement for an older wet pond might be to increase its treatment volume, re-align inlets to prevent short circuiting, add internal cells and
Appendix H
H‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
forebays to increase flow path, and add aquatic benches, wetland elements and possibly even floating islands to enhance overall nutrient reduction. At first glance, it would seem to be difficult to assign removal rates for these BMP enhancements, although many Bay states now utilize a two level design system whereby nutrient removal rates are increased when certain treatment volume and design features are met or exceeded (Virginia DCR, 2011, CSN, 2011, and soon to be implemented in DC, DE, WV). Therefore, the recommended option to estimate the nutrient reduction achieved by BMP enhancement retrofits is as follows: Step 1: The base nutrient removal rate for the existing BMP (prior to enhancement) should be the conservative CBP-approved rate found in Table 20. Step 2: The designer should then evaluate the range of BMP enhancements to see if they qualify for the higher Level 1 or Level 2 rates shown in Table 21. Step 3: The nutrient removal rate for the retrofit is then computed as the difference from the Level 1 or 2 rates and the existing CBP-approved rate. Green Street Retrofits: Green streets utilize a combination of LID practices within the public street right of way, and are gaining popularity as an attractive option to treat stormwater runoff in highly urban watersheds (CSN, 2011c). Green streets provide many urban design benefits and create a more attractive and functional urban streetscape. Green streets typically involve a combination of practices such as permeable pavers, street bioretention, expanded tree pits, individual street trees, impervious cover removal, curb extensions and filtering practices. The linear nature of green streets makes them a very efficient composite LID practice that can treat several acres of impervious cover in a single system. Numerous green street demonstration projects have been installed in cities within the Bay watershed. At the current time, there is no standard design for green streets, since each project must deal with unique constraints present in each individual green street section (e.g. street width, right of way width, underground utilities, development intensity, parking needs, street lighting, and pedestrian/automotive safety). Consequently, it is impossible to assign a generic nutrient and sediment removal rate for green streets at this time. As an alternative, the nutrient removal credit for green streets can be estimated in a simple two-step process: Step 1: Impervious Cover Reduction Credit. The Simple Method can be used to compute the change in nutrient load that can be attributed the reduction in impervious cover associated with a narrower street. This is easily done by adjusting the site runoff coefficients to reflect the lower impervious cover associated with the green street.
Appendix H
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | H‐5
Step 2: The green street project can then be analyzed as a whole to determine the actual rainfall depth it controls and degree of runoff reduction it achieves. Based on these factors, designers can select the appropriate mass removal rate from Table 22, and then multiply it by the adjusted baseline load computed in Step 1. The nutrient reduction calculated in this step can then be added to the impervious cover reduction credit computed in Step 1. On-site LID Retrofits: This category includes the installation of a large number of small on-site retrofits, such as rain gardens, compost amendments, rain barrels, rooftop disconnections and tree planting, over the scale of a residential neighborhood. These retrofits are typically delivered by local governments or watershed groups, who provide incentives and subsidies to individual property owners to implement them. In many cases, dozens or even hundreds of these small retrofits might be installed in any given subwatershed.
To simplify analysis, it is recommended that localities record the cumulative area of impervious cover treated by on-site retrofits, and then enter the average rainfall depth controlled and runoff reduction achieved in Table 22 to find the appropriate mass removal rate for all of them. Local Tracking, Reporting and Verification Localities should maintain a project file for each retrofit project installed. The file should be maintained for the lifetime for which the retrofit nutrient removal credit will be claimed. The typical duration for the credit will be approximately 25 years, although the locality may be required to conduct a performance inspection at least once every five years to verify that the practice is being adequately maintained and operating as designed. Localities should also submit some basic documentation to the state about each retrofit, including GPS coordinates for the project location, the 12 digit watershed in which it is located, the nutrient reduction credit claimed (and the method used to compute it), and a signed certification that the retrofit has inspected after construction and meets its performance criteria. Localities are encouraged to develop a GIS-based BMP tracking system in order to schedule routine inspections and maintenance activities over time.
Appendix H
H‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix H
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | H‐7
Appendix H
H‐8 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Appendix H
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | H‐9
URBAN REFORESTATION Status: There is an existing CBP-approved BMP nutrient rate for reforestation in urban stream buffers. In addition, tree planting in urban areas is modeled as a land use change (i.e., shift from unit nutrient loading rate for turf cover to forest cover). Neither of these rates accounts for situations where stormwater runoff is directed to reforestation areas and/or when soil infiltration conditions are improved through soil restoration. In addition, there is no credit for urban tree planting techniques to increase forest canopy and improve stormwater treatment in highly urban watersheds. Interim methods for addressing these situations are proposed, and it is anticipated an Expert Panel and the Forestry Working Group will revisit the urban reforestation credits in late 2012 or early 2013. Definition: Urban reforestation involves restoring compacted soils and planting trees explicit goal of establishing a mature forest canopy that will intercept rainfall, increase evapo-transpiration rates, and enhance soil infiltration rates. As a result, at least five kinds of reforestation are possible:
Appendix H
H‐10 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
1. Upland Reforestation 2. Forest Filter Strip 3. Urban Stream Buffer 4. Urban Tree Canopy 5. Urban Tree Canopy w/ BMPs Upland Reforestation is defined as tree planting on a turf or open area that does not receive stormwater runoff. Filter Strips are an engineered practice where trees are planted in a zone that is designed to accept runoff from adjacent impervious cover. Urban Stream Buffers involve planting trees within 100 feet of a stream or wetland to create a forest buffer and then installing controls at the boundary so that it can treat sheet flow from adjacent pervious or impervious areas. Urban Tree Canopy involves planting trees in the street right of way in very urban areas to create a mature forest canopy over impervious areas. The canopy intercepts rainfall and acts as a ―vertical stormwater disconnectionǁ during the growing season (Cappiella et al, 2006). Urban Tree Canopy w/ BMPs increase tree canopy but also employs expanded tree pits to filter runoff from adjacent impervious areas. Technical Issues: Research is limited on the hydrologic function and potential nutrient removal associated with the five kinds of reforestation described above. In general, the CBP approved nutrient and sediment removal rates are higher for reforestation that occurs in agricultural watersheds than in urban applications. The primary reason is that agricultural buffers and forest filter strips treat nutrients in both groundwater and surface runoff, whereas their urban counterparts treat concentrated runoff that can often short-circuit the system. Lastly, the benefit of reforestation largely depends on where it is located in the urban landscape, what are the soil infiltration rates at the site and whether it can treat runoff from adjacent impervious areas. As an example, upland reforestation gets a nutrient credit that is much smaller than reforestation on permeable soils near a stream or a parking lot that is engineered to treat stormwater. Recommended Rates for Reforestation. Table 28 outlines the removal rates and reporting units for the five types of urban reforestation.
Appendix H
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | H‐11
Qualifying Conditions The qualifying conditions for upland reforestation are as follows:
The minimum contiguous area of reforestation must be greater than 5,000 square feet.
If soils are compacted, they will need to be deep tilled, graded and amended with compost to increase the porosity and water holding capacity of the pervious area, using the methods outlined in the Bay-wide soil restoration specification.
The proposed reforestation must be for the purpose of reducing runoff. Compensatory
reforestation required under local or state forest conservation laws is not eligible for the credit
A long term vegetation management plan must be prepared and filed with the local
review authority in order to maintain the reforestation area in a forest condition.
The planting plan does not need to replicate a forest ecosystem or exclusively rely on native plant species, but it should be capable of achieving 75% forest canopy within ten years.
The construction contract should contain a care and replacement warranty extending at
least two growing seasons, to ensure adequate growth and survival of the plant community. Control of invasive tree species should be a major part of the initial maintenance plan.
Appendix H
H‐12 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
The reforestation area shall be shown on all construction drawings and erosion and sediment control plans during construction.
The reforestation area should be protected by a stormwater easement, deed restriction
or other legal instrument which stipulates that no future development or disturbance may occur within the reforested area, for a minimum of at least ten years. Any clearing or land disturbance after that point will negate the value of the nutrient credit.
The qualifying conditions for forested filter strips and urban stream buffers can be found in state design guidance such as MDE (2009), VADCR (2009) and CSN (2011). Qualifying conditions for urban tree canopy w/ or w/o BMPs have yet to be developed. Local Tracking, Reporting and Verification Tracking of reforestation projects is critical given that there is such a lag time between when the trees are planted and when the full runoff and nutrient reduction benefits of a forest are realized. In most cases, it takes at least 1o to 15 years for a tree planting to acquire the characteristics of a forest. During this time, there are a number of threats to successful forest establishment (deer browsing, drought, invasive species, etc.). Therefore, the credit should not be reported until two growing seasons after the initial planting to ensure adequate growth and survival, followed by inspections and forest management activities every two years thereafter.
Appendix I
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | I‐1
APPENDIXI
WETLANDSWATCHONLINESURVEY“WATERSHEDFRIENDLYACTIONSINHAMPTONROADS”
ThefollowingonlinesurveywashostedontheWetlandsWatch,Inc.websiteandwasopenforresponsesfromFebruary1toMarch30,2012.Atotalof266citizensparticipatedinthesurvey.
WATERSHED-FRIENDLY ACTIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
WE ARE ASKING YOU TO TAKE THIS SURVEY BECAUSE OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH AN ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES WATERSHED AND HABITAT-FRIENDLY ACTIONS IN HAMPTON ROADS.
Everyone in Hampton Roads lives in a watershed and our actions can have a negative or positive impact on the health of the Chesapeake Bay, our local waters, and other natural resources. Watershed stewardship actions, also known as best management practices (BMPs) reduce and control stormwater runoff along with associated water pollution, erosion, and flooding and protect and restore natural resources.
BMPs like rain gardens, rain barrels or cisterns, permeable pavement, living shorelines, water-friendly landscaping, native plants buffers,reduced fertilizer use and other water-friendly lawn care, planting trees and restoration of wetlands, streams, or stormwater ponds are examples of the types of actions that people can practice on private property.
This survey will be used to identify how many members of watershed groups are applying these BMPs on their private property and a general idea of the types of BMPs being used by the members.
PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO FILL OUT THIS SURVEY! If we can, through this survey, show government agencies that these efforts have taken place, they will start including them in watershed cleanup plans and your work will count toward your local governments cleanup goals! Also, more voluntary actions on the part of private property owners can lead to less regulatory requirements and reduce the need to collect additional stormwater fees to pay for costly upgrades to existing stormwater systems.
General Information
We are currently trying to collect information on watershed and habitat-friendly actions taken on existing PRIVATELY-OWNED residential, small commercial, and institutional properties. Please keep this in mind as you answer the following questions.
1. The watershed- and habitat-friendly actions described in this survey are on: *
single family residential property
Appendix I
I‐2 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
commercial property
institutional property (museum, church, private school, private club, etc.)
community-owned and maintained property
multi-family residential property
Other (please specify): Provide additional comments or details below:
2. The watershed and habitat-friendly actions and property described in this survey are located in: *
Chesapeake
Franklin
Gloucester
Hampton
Isle of Wight
James City County
Newport News
Norfolk
Poquoson
Portsmouth
Southampton County
Suffolk
Surry County
Virginia Beach
Williamsburg
York County
Appendix I
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | I‐3
If you know the watershed that you are located in, please provide below:
3. Which best describes you? *
Member of the Elizabeth River Project
Master Naturalist or Master Gardener
Member of Lynnhaven River NOW
Member of Chesapeake Bay Foundation (VOICES or other Watershed Stewardship Training)
Member of the Friends of Powhatan Creek
I am a residential property owner
I am a commercial or mult-family property owner
Member of a homeowners association
Landscape Professional
Associated with an institution (church, museum, private school, private club)
A member of a native plant society
A member of a garden club
Member of Lafayette Wetlands Partnership
Other (please specify):
Watershed and Habitat-Friendly Actions
4. Which of the following watershed-friendly lawn care actions have you practiced on this property? *
Stopped fertilizing lawn/turf
Had soil analyzed
Reduced fertilizer application to once in the fall
Lawn/turf is mowed at a height no less than 3 inches
Reduced lawn/turf area and replaced it with native plants
Appendix I
I‐4 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
This property does not have a lawn
Hired a water-friendly certified lawn care company to maintain my lawn/turf
None of the Above
Haven't done any of the above but would consider it in the future
Other (please specify):
5. Which of the following other watershed stewardship actions (BMPs) you have taken on this property? *
Installed and maintain a rain garden (or bioretention area) to reduce and filter stormwater runoff
Installed one or more rain barrels or cisterns
Installed a buffer garden of native trees, shrubs, perennials, and grasses between my lawn and waterway, wetlands, and/or the street
Planted trees/participated in a tree planting project
Planted native plants and avoided invasive species
Scoop my dog's poop
Redirected downspouts and other stormwater runoff away from paved surfaces and into a planted bed or other permeable area
Replaced paved surfaces with permeable pavement that allows water to soak into the ground
Created a wetland on the property with native wetland plants
Replaced impervious surfaces like concrete/asphalt driveways, walks and patios with permeable area that includes plants
Installed a green roof
None of the Above
Haven't done any of the above but will consider it in the future
I collect yard debris so it doesn't go down the storm drain
Other (please specify):
Appendix I
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | I‐5
6. For waterfront properties (stream, river, lake, pond, bay, etc.) please indicate which actions have been installed next to or in the water body. *
Expanded an existing or established a new buffer of native plants
Installed a living shoreline to control erosion
Established a conservation area of native plants and/or wetlands
Stopped mowing the wetland plants and now protect them
Created a wetland on the property with native wetland plants
Replaced impervious surfaces like concrete/asphalt driveways, walks and patios with planted beds
Restored and protected wetlands
Participated in a streambank or stream restoration project
This is not a waterfront property
Oyster gardening
Planted underwater grasses (SAV)
None of the above
None of the above, but would consider it in the future
Other (please specify):
7. If the property has a stormwater pond, please note any actions taken *
Performed the required maintenance on the pond
Planted a buffer of native plants around the pond
Added wetlands plants to the pond
The property doesn't have a stormwater pond
None of the above
None of the above but will consider it in the future
Other (please specify):
Appendix I
I‐6 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Additional Comments
This section is an opportunity for you provide additional details regarding your experiences with the design, installation, and maintenance of the actions noted in the previous section.
8. What types of resources would make it easier for you to increase the use of BMPs on your property? *
Ability to buy native plants at local nurseries
Existing planting plans to take the guess work out of plant selection
Professional guidance and oversight during the design, installation, and maintenance stages of the work
Access to trained landscape professionals that I could hire to design, install, and/or maintain the project
Project materials already assembled and readily available at local garden centers
Financial assistance to help pay for the project
A shorter plan approval process and facilitation by local government officials
Guidance and assistance from a trained Watershed Steward
Other (please specify): Provide additional comments below:
9. If you have a lawn and you use fertilizer and weed control chemicals on you lawn, who does this?
I do
I have a lawn service
I don't have a lawn
I don't apply fertilizer or weed control on my lawn
10. Which of the following best describes who DESIGNED your BMPs? (select one or more answers)
I did it myself using guidance from a workshop or literature
A professional landscape designer, architect or landcaping company designed it for me
A stormwater consultant
A Master Gardener or Master Naturalist
Appendix I
Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | I‐7
A non-profit group representative
Other (please specify):
11. Do you have DESIGN "lessons learned" about BMP designs that you can share? Please note the type of BMP associated with the "lessons learned".
12. Which of the following best describes who INSTALLED your BMPs? (Select one or more answers)
I did it myself
A professional landscaping company or installation company
A stormwater or environmental consultant
A Master Gardener or Master Naturalist
A non-profit organization
Other (please specify):
13. Do you have INSTALLATION "lessons learned" about BMP installation that you can share? Please note the type of BMP associated with the "lessons learned".
14. Do you have MAINTENANCE "lessons learned" that you can share? Please note the type of BMP associated with the "lesson learned".
15. Would you like to recommend any professionals that you have worked with to realize these projects?
16. Do you have any additional comments or information that you wish to provide to us?
Appendix I
I‐8 | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives
Contact Information
If you have more detailed information that you would like to share, you may call Wetlands Watch at 757-623-4835 or contact Shereen Hughes, Assistant Director of Wetlands Watch, via email at shereen.hughes@wetlandswatch.org. If you wish to participate in a more detailed accounting of existing BMPs on private property or wish to be contacted by us directly about your survey response, please provide us with your contact information.
First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address:
Thank you for participating in this survey!
You have now completed the survey. You may now close this window.
top related