Reducing Nutrients on Private Property REVIEW...Report No. PEP‐12‐05 ... Environment, Wetlands Watch began a review of efforts by nonprofit watershed groups, environmental steward

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

tsmith

Typewritten Text

tsmith

Typewritten Text

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


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


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



2.2.3 MontgomeryCounty,Maryland................................................................................................2‐8



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



2.2.6 CityofFredericksburg...............................................................................................................2‐15

2.3 Non‐ProfitModelPrograms....................................................................................................................2‐16

2.3.1 ElizabethRiverProject..............................................................................................................2‐16



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



2.3.3 LynnhavenRiverNOWandtheCityofVirginiaBeach.................................................2‐20



2.3.4 ReedyCreekWatershedProject–Richmond,VA...........................................................2‐22



2.3.5 FriendsoftheRappahannock.................................................................................................2‐23



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


3.2.2.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐16

Table of Contents

Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives | xiii


PAGE

3.3 LoadReductionBMPs................................................................................................................................3‐17

3.3.1 UrbanStreamRestoration.......................................................................................................3‐17


3.3.1.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐17

3.3.2 TidalShorelineBMPs.................................................................................................................3‐18


3.3.2.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐18

3.3.3 MarineSewageDisposalFacilities........................................................................................3‐19


3.3.3.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐19

3.3.4 SubmergedAquaticVegetationPlantingsandOysterRestoration........................3‐19


3.3.4.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐20

3.4 NonStructuralStormwaterManagementBMPs............................................................................3‐20

3.4.1 UrbanNutrientManagement..................................................................................................3‐20


3.4.1.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐22

3.4.2 ForestBuffers................................................................................................................................3‐22


3.4.2.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐23

3.4.3 WetlandsRestoration................................................................................................................3‐23


3.4.3.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐24

3.5 StructuralStormwaterRetrofitBMPs.................................................................................................3‐24

3.5.1 On‐SiteLIDandGreenStreetRetrofits...............................................................................3‐28


3.5.1.2 Tracking........................................................................................................................3‐30

Table of Contents

xiv | Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices and Incentives


PAGE

3.6 OnsiteSewageBMPs...................................................................................................................................3‐31

3.6.1 SepticConnections......................................................................................................................3‐31

3.6.2 SepticPumping.............................................................................................................................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


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


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


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



Section 2 ‐ Existing Model Programs


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. 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



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;



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).



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.



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.


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



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.


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



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.




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).


TheCountyisdevelopingaweb‐baseddatabaseandGISsystemtotrackBMPsinstalledonprivateproperty,aswellastheexpansionofthelandscapercertificationandtrainingprogram.TheCountyisconsideringadditionalcost‐sharemechanismstoexpandthelistofacceptableBMPstorespondtoademandfordrivewayretrofitprojects.

AccordingtoareportbyECONorthwest(2011)ongreeninfrastructure,identifiesthefollowingsuccessesoftheRainScapesprogram:

Planted315trees;

Installed180rainbarrels;

Installed42raingardens;

Installed50conservationlandscapingprojects;

Installed11permeablepavementprojects;

Installed3drywells;

Installed10cisterns;and

Installed2greenroofs.



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.


Throughworkshops,demonstrationandgrantprojects,amini‐grantprogram,andmediapromotions,theJCCPRIDEprograminformsandengagescitizensoncriticalwatershedissues



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



continuebeyondtheNFWFgrantperiodwithCountyfunding.Participantssignamaintenanceagreementforaperiodof5years,withfollowupinspectionsbyCountyStormwaterDivisionstaff.RaingardenlocationswillbetrackedthroughtheCounty’sexistingBMPtrackingprocedures.

JCSArunstheBeWaterSmartrebateprogramthatpromotesreducedwateruseandoffersrebatesof$25forrainbarrels,upto$700forcisterns,and$150to$250forprofessionallydesigned“watersmart”landscaping.

Otheractivitiesandpartnershipsincludearesummarizedbelow:

TheWilliamsburgLandConservancyrecruitedprivatepropertyownerstoplace900acresoflandintoConservancy‐ownedandmanagedconservationeasements.

AJCCParksandRecreationDepartmentimplementedalivingshorelineprojectfundedbya$100,000ChesapeakeBayTrustgrant.TheprojectwasdesignedinhouseandpermittingwassecuredbyCountystaff.CBFstaffandvolunteersfromthecommunityassistedwiththeprojectinstallation.Therestorationeffortwasidentifiedinthe2009ShapingOurShoresmasterplandevelopedfortheCounty’spropertyfrontingtheJamesRiver.


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



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.


TheCountyfundsstormwaterandwatershedmanagementprimarilythroughtwofundingmechanisms.In2008,theCountyestablishedtheArlingtonSanitaryDistrictandbegancollectingtheArlingtonSanitaryDistrictTax,whichtaxespropertyowners1.3centsper$100oftheassessedvalueofaproperty.Thetaxdollarscollected($5to$7milliondollarsperyear)areplacedinastormwatermanagementfundthatfundsthestormwatermanagementprogram.Inaddition,theCountyestablishedaWatershedManagementFundthatcollectsfeesfromdevelopersinlieuofBMPimplementationwhenimplementationisnotfeasible.

2 ShereenHughesofWetlandsWatch,primaryauthorofthisreport,haspersonalknowledgeandexperiencegainedasaJCCPlanningCommissioner,andmemberofthe2010ComprehensivePlanUpdate,GreenBuildingandBSDImplementationCommittees.



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.




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.



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.


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



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.


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



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.


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.



TheCityofNorfolkhasanumberofincentiveprogramsthatcouldbeusedtopromoteandpartiallyfundBMPsonprivatepropertyincludingCelebrateTrees,atreeplantingprogram,$65dollarrainbarrel‐makingworkshops,andKeepNorfolkBeautiful.KeepNorfolkBeautifulisaprogramoftheNorfolkEnvironmentalCommission(NEC),anon‐profitorganizationandabranchoftheCityofNorfolkDepartmentofPublicWorksthatmanagesanenvironmentalrewardsprogramforcivicleaguesintheCityofNorfolk.ThrougharewardsprogramcalledEnvironmentalAwardsforRecyclinginNeighborhoods(EARNN),civicleaguescanearncashrewardsforstormwatermanagementeffortsanddistributingstewardshipinformation.In2011,25civicleagueswereenrolledintheprogram.Inaddition,theCityco‐sponsorsRiverfest,anannualfestivalthatpromotesenvironmentalstewardship,restorationefforts,andprogressintheLafayetteRiverwatershed.


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



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;



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.


LynnhavenRiverNOWanditsprogramsarefundedthroughacombinationofsources.Approximatelyone‐thirdofthefundingcomesfromprivateindividualdonationsandtheproceedsfromeventsliketheannualoysterroastand“PaddlefortheRiver;”anotherthirdcomesfromfoundationandgovernmentgrants,andanotherthirdcomesfromacontractwiththeCitygovernment.Theorganizationalsointendstosetupalong‐termendowment(BurkeandDunn(editors),2010).LRNhasbeentherecipientofgrantsfromNFWFandtheChesapeakeBayRestorationFund.

LRN’sincentiveprogramsincludethePearlSchoolprogram,thePearlHomesprogram,anannualphotographycontest,andanannualvolunteerappreciationpicnicandvolunteer‐of‐the‐yearaward.AccordingtoBurkeandDunn(2010),thePearlSchoolprogramwasestablishedto



recognize,encourage,andsupporttheeffortsofteachersandschoolsthataredevelopinganethicofenvironmentalresponsibilityandstewardshipamongstudents.BurkeandDunn(2010)alsonotethatLRNalsohasawetlandrestorationprojectcalledGrowingWetlandsintheClassroom,throughwhichplantsaregrownbystudentsandtransplantedtorestorationsites.

LRNrecentlylaunchedthePearlHomesprogramasawaytoengageandrecognizecitizensforwater‐friendlybehaviorandpractices(seeAppendixC).Atlastcount,376propertyownershaveenrolledtobecomePearlHomes.TheprogramissimilartotheERPRiverStarHomesandalsousescommunity‐basedsocialmarketingtechniquesusingthemethodologyofDr.McKenzie‐Mohr.Ifacceptedintotheprogram,propertyownersreceiveaPearlHomegardenflagtodisplayinthefrontyardandadvertiseparticipationtoneighbors.


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).




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.


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).


AccordingtoNFWFfiles,in2009,FriendsoftheRappahannockreceiveda$108,956NFWFgrantto“replicateinnovativemodelsfornutrientcontrolintworapidlysuburbanizingmunicipalitiesintheRappahannockRiverBasin.The[p]rojectwillimplementbestpracticesforstormwater



managementandchangelandownerbehaviorviaa“buildingblock”methodforchangingdevelopmentcodesandasocialmarketingprogramthatquantifiesnutrientreductions.”

FriendsoftheRappahannock(likeArlingtonCounty)usetheLivableNeighborhoodWaterStewardsProgramtopromoteandincreasewater‐friendlyactionsonprivatepropertyneighborhoodbyneighborhood.TheVirginiaDEQ’sOfficeofEnvironmentalEducationtrainedFriendsoftheRappahannockaswellasanotherNGO,theThreeRiversEnvironmentalEducators.


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



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)



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


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.



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


2.7 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/



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



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



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 3 – Appropriate BMPs


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.



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.



“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).



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.



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



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).



Table3‐2: FactorsInfluencingtheSuitabilityofVirginiaApprovedBMPs(VADCRandWaterResourcesResearchCenter,2009)



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



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



Figure 3‐4: University of Maryland BMP Cost Estimates (King and Hagan, 2011)



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.



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



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.



Figure 3‐7: Retrofit Cost Estimates (Schueler et al., 2007)

Figure 3‐8: Suitability of BMPs Based on Contributing Drainage Area (VA DCR)



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



habitatrestorationprograms.ManyofthemodelprogramsidentifiedinotherjurisdictionswithinandoutsidetheChesapeakeBaywatershedpromoteandincentivizetreeplantingasaBMP.

Figure 3‐9: Recommended Tree Planting Efficiencies (MDE 2011)


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



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).


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).



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.


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



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.”


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:



DecidedthatSAVplantingsandpreservationwouldhaveasignificantpositivelocalimpactonwaterclarityandthatthepracticewillbepursuedasafunctionofclarityimprovementsratherthanloadreduction;and

Agreedthatoysterscanplayanimportantroleinwaterclarityandreducingnutrients,andthatthegroupwouldpursuethepracticesofrestorationandoysteraquacultureintributarystrategies.


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



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.


SomewatershedgroupsandnutrientmanagershavereportedthatsoilstestanalysesperformedbyVirginiaTechrecommendhighernutrientapplicationsthanisneededintheHamptonRoadsRegion.LynnhavenRiverNOWandElizabethRiverProjecthaveformedanarrangementwithanindependentsoilstestingcompanyinRichmondtoperform“reducednutrient”analyseswhenrequestedbymembersofthetwoorganizations.TheTurfLoveprograminJamesCityCountyhasconvincedseveralgolfcoursesintheareatoadoptnutrientmanagementplansandmayserveasamodelforotherlocalities.

Beyondtheseefforts,areasonablefocusmaybetoworkwithlawncarecompaniestomodifytheirnutrientmanagementplans;however,manyofthesemaintenancecompaniesbenefiteconomicallyfromthesaleandapplicationoffertilizers.

Becauseagreatdealoftimeandmoneyisspentineducationandoutreachaswellaslawncaresupplies,Schuelerhasrecommendedaprogramthatwouldpaypeopletostopusingfertilizersforthreeyearsandobservetheresults.Hearguesthatlocalitiesandwatershedgroupscouldreducethetimeandcostsassociatedwiththedeliveryoftheselawn‐caremessagesandensureaquantifiableamountofnutrientreduction.

Severalstakeholderswouldliketoseeanefforttoreplacelawnswithalternativenativegroundcoversorfocusonreplacingportionsoflawnareaswithnativeplantsandcompostedsoils.Bothoptionswouldeliminatetheneedforfertilizers.Onestakeholdernotedthatnitrogenismoreofaconcernthanphosphorusintidalwatersandtheuseofnitrogeninfertilizerswillstillneedtobeaddressedevenafterthephosphorusbanisinplace.Anotherstakeholderfromamore



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.



Privatepropertyownersadjacenttoabodyofwatershouldbeencouragedtoplanturbanriparianforestbuffersofnativeplantswherebuffersdonotcurrentlyexistorincreasethesizeofexistingbufferstoatleast35feetwide.Replacinglawnandturfwithnativeplantriparianbuffershasanapprovednutrientandsedimentreductionefficiencyof25%forNitrogen,50%forphosphorus,and50%forsediment.


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.




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



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.



Figure 3‐10: Feasibility of Retrofits Based on Impervious Cover (Schueler, 2005).



Figure 3‐11: BMP Retrofit Design Issues (Schueler et al., 2007).

Figure 3‐12: Common Locations for BMP Retrofits (Schueler et al., 2007).



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.



Althoughprojectsareonpublicproperty,localitiescanoftengetsupportandbuy‐inofcommunitymembersbecauseofthecommunitybenefitsassociatedwithgreenstreetretrofits.Inaddition,engagedcommunitymembersmayberecruitedtomaintainplantmaterialand/orbioretentionfeaturesinfrontoftheirpropertyorwithintheircommunity.Greenstreetretrofitsmaybeaneffectivestrategyparticularlyinultra‐urbanareas.


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



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.



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.


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



December7,2013(12VAC5‐613‐90D).Ifthesesystemsreplaceexistingsepticsystems,itmaybepossibleforassociatednutrientreductionstobecreditedtowardlocalgovernmenttargets.


Red



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


3‐34 | Red



Table3‐3:


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


Red



Table3‐3:


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


3‐36 | Red



Table3‐3:


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.


Red



Table3‐3:


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


3‐38 | Red



Table3‐3:


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


Red



Table3‐3:


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


3‐40 | Red



Table3‐3:


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


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



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.



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?



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



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,



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



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.



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.



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 5 – Existing BMPs


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.



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.



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



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)



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)



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)


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)



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)


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 6 – Summary and Recommendations


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



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;



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:



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



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.



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.



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


TheCleanCommunityProgram,CBF– GrassesfortheMasses,VIMSresearchprojects

TrainedStewards CBFOystergardeners,VoiCeS,VIMSworkshops,MasterGardeners

SWCD Tidewater

NGOs TidewaterOysterGardenersAssociation

CityofHamptonPlanningInitiatives HamptonCleanCityCommission,EnvironmentalSustainabilityCoordinator,

HamptonComprehensiveWaterwaysManagementPlanSteeringCommittee,VIMSshorelinemanagementstudy,NeighborhoodPlans,NewmarketCreekParkandTrailSystemMasterPlan,BeachFrontandStormProtectionPlan,NewmarketandBackRiverRestorationProject


Yes,norebate


KeepHamptonGreen,CleanCityCommissionY.A.R.D.SandEnvironmentalStewardsawards,HamptonNeighborhoodCommissionNeighborhoodGrants,HamptonHousingVentureCurbAppealMatchingGrants

TrainedStewards PeninsulaMasterNaturalists,MasterGardeners(AdvancedWaterStewards),VoiCeS,OysterGardeners

VCE MeganTierney

University/Research VIMS,HamptonUniversity



Table6‐1: SummaryofCollaborativePlanningEfforts,NGOs,andSWCDsbyLocality(continued)

DetailsIsleofWightCountyPlanningInitiative ComprehensivePlan,HazardMitigation


SepticPump‐outGrantProgram

TrainedStewards HistoricSouthsideMasterNaturalists,WesternTidewaterMasterGardeners

VCE JanetSpencer

SWCD Peanut

JamesCityCounty

PlanningInitiatives ComprehensivePlan,Parks&Recreation,GreenBuilding,BetterSiteDesign,CommunityCharacterCorridors,WatershedManagementPlans,StormwaterManagement/FloodplainManagement/HazardMitigation,ResidentialClusterDevelopment,WaterSupply/Conservation


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


CommunitySupportAgencyGrant,ResidentialRehabilitationPropertyTaxAbatementProgram,AdoptaTree,BeachErosionTechnicalAssistance,


Yes,rebateforparticipantsintheCityHouseholdHazardousChemicalsCollectionget15%stormwaterrebate.

TrainedStewards PeninsulaMasterNaturalists,MasterGardeners(AdvancedWaterStewards),VoiCeS,OysterGardeners

VCEagent MaryWright

NGOs NewportNewsGreenFoundation,CBF,WetlandsWatch

University/Research CNU,VIMS




CityofNorfolkPlanningInitiatives GreenCommittee,ComprehensivePlan,FloodMitigationStudy,Norfolk

EnvironmentalCommission,LafayetteRiverWatershedRestorationPlan,ElizabethRiverWatershedRestorationPlan,EnvironmentalOutreach,Sustainability/Environmental


Yes,norebate


CelebrateTrees,KeepNorfolkBeautiful,EARNN,RiverStarHomes,Schools,Businesses

UniversityResearchCollaboration

VIMS,ODU,


NGOs ElizabethRiverProject,ChesapeakeBayFoundation,WetlandsWatch,LafayetteWetlandsPartnership,

CityofPoquosonPlanningInitiatives ComprehensivePlan,HazardMitigationPlan


No

TrainedStewards MasterGardeners,PeninsulaTreeStewards,PeninsulaMasterNaturalist,CBFVoiCeS,Oystergardeners

NGOs PoquosonCitizensfortheEnvironment,PoquosonLionsClubTreePlantingCampaign

CityofPortsmouthPlanning ComprehensivePlan,Floodprotection/mitigation,ParadiseCreekGreenway

Plan,GreeningPortsmouth,Parks,Recreation&LeisureServicesMasterPlan,


RiverStarHomes,Schools,Businesses,NeighborhoodBeautificationProgram,


Yes,non‐residentialcreditforBMPs


NGOs ElizabethRiverProject,ChesapeakeBayFoundation,WetlandsWatch,HofflerCreekWildlifeFoundation

NGOprojects ParadiseCreekPark,ERPParadiseCreekbrownfieldsredevelopmentplan,RiverStarBusinesses

TownofSmithfieldPlanningInitiatives ComprehensivePlan,EntranceCorridorOverlayDistrictStreetScape,

SmithfieldSouthChurchStreetBeautificationProject

Stewards HistoricSouthsideMasterNaturalists,WesternTidewaterMasterGardeners

SWCD Colonial




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


Yes,nocredit


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




DetailsCityofWilliamsburgPlanningInitiatives GreenWilliamsburg,CityOpenSpacePreservation,CountyResolutionon

Sustainability,NeighborhoodImprovementProgram


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


BeautificationCommittee– CleanBusinessAwards,Treegiveaways&plantings

SWCD Colonial

MasterNaturalists HistoricRiversMasterNaturalist,YorkCountyMasterGardeners,PeninsulaTreeStewards,CBFVoices,OysterGardeners

VCE DanNortman

NGOs YorkCountyWaterwaysAlliance




Section 7 – References


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



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/



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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/



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



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


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


Appendix E


Appendix E


Appendix E


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


Appendix F


Appendix F


Appendix F



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


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


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


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


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


Appendix H


Appendix H


Appendix H


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Appendix I


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


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


Appendix I


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


A non-profit group representative


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


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


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 [email protected]. 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.