laila racevskis 1, tatiana borisova 1, and jennison kipp 2 1 assistant professor, food and resource...
TRANSCRIPT
Laila Racevskis1, Tatiana Borisova1, and Jennison Kipp2 1Assistant Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida
2Resource Economist, Program for Resource Efficient Communities, University of Florida
Contentious water and
land use issues in NE FL Complex processes of stakeholder
engagement: TMDL and BMAP Anecdotal evidence of stakeholder
dissatisfaction with these processes Little understanding of how stakeholders
perceive the BMAP development process
8-month training program on collaborative leadership
Practicum team of 6 Fellows from academia, law, local government, and engineering
Collaborative project to improve understanding of stakeholder perspectives of water quality issues in northeast Florida
Florida’s longest river Listed as one of nation’s
10 “Most Endangered Rivers” in 2008
Slow flowing river, difficult to flush pollutants
Major pollution sources: wastewater treatment plant discharges and stormwater from urban and agricultural areas
Flows from Welaka north to river mouth at Mayport
Decline in water quality due to industry, farming and urban development
Largest nutrient contributor in LSJ is treated wastewater
Runoff from Tri-County Agricultural Area
Current pollutant loads exceed levels needed to meet state and federal water quality standards
State regulatory mechanism that sets a maximum flow of specific nutrients in a watershed
Lower SJR is subject to TMDL requirements as established by Florida DEP
Requires nitrogen and phosphorous reductions
Implementation strategy: BMAP
Florida DEP convened a LSJR TMDL Executive Committee in 2002 to assist in development of a BMAP to achieve the basin’s TMDL
Complex process that involves many stakeholders with diverse interests
How has the process worked, and what are stakeholder perceptions of it?
1. Improve understanding of stakeholder opinions regarding water quality management in the LSJR
2. Improve understanding of stakeholder perceptions of the availability and quality of information on water quality management in the LSJR
3. Collect information on the manner in which such information is being communicated
4. Share results and lessons learned with other regions who may engage in similar processes in the future.
3 Focus Groups conducted with representatives of key stakeholder groups: Agriculture Environmental NGOs Local government staff
Participant recruitment done with assistance from local extension offices
Facilitated 2-hour discussions Results transcribed and analyzed for content
and themes
Water Quality Causes of water pollution Perceptions of contributing
sources Fertilizer application rates
Values and Trade-offs Nonmarket values of the river Tradeoffs associated with
protecting the river Process
Representation on Executive Committee
BMAP development timelines Communication
Research and Education Scientific information Education Role of Land Grant university
Policies and Programs Policies and projects used to
address water quality problems
Future policies and projects Success stories
Finger-pointing: Ag feels that it takes the blame too often and other sources not held accountable. However, environmental groups recognize that ag is unfairly targeted
Perception of state agencies – positive and negative
Opinions about water quality credit trading
Misbalance in composition of Executive Committee
Stakeholder opinions not heard, even from groups that had representation on the committee
Importance of general public perceptions/attitudes and education
Importance of accurate and available data BMPs create challenges for farmers and need
to be economically feasible – lack of financial resources
Improved communication needed Improved data sharing needed Broader representation of stakeholder groups on Executive
Committee Stakeholder education, invest early on in the process Engage stakeholders more effectively – participatory and
collaborative processes Find common ground Address distributional and economic consequences of proposed
nutrient allocations Allocate time and resources to evaluation of the TMDL/BMAP
processes Encourage information exchange about the process across
watersheds in the state Conduct technical peer review of analytical methods and
products by neutral experts
Stakeholder input reveals process deficiencies Other regions and states can benefit from this
information Results will be disseminated back to
participants and other interested stakeholders Additional focus groups may be conducted
with utilities, homeowners associations, developers, engineers, home builders