Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1
Virginia MS4 Phase II Community Forum Presented by the Environmental Finance Center Agenda – June 17, 2013 Lord Fairfax Community College, Fauquier Campus
The Barn 6480 College St. Warrenton, VA 20187-8820
9:00 AM Registration and coffee
9:30 AM Welcome – Joanne Throwe, Environmental Finance Center
9:45 to 10:15 AM Regulatory Overview
Understanding the regulatory landscape and municipal responsibilities
Speaker: Ginny Snead, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation / Department of Environmental Quality
10:15 to 10:45 AM Watershed Approach to MS4 Programs
Considering how the MS4 fits into existing efforts
Speaker: Scott Crafton, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
10:45 to 11:00 AM Morning Q&A
11:00 to 11:45 AM Agency Resource Panel
What resources are available from state agencies to support aspects of MS4 programming
Moderator: Jill Jefferson, Environmental Finance Center Speakers:
Robbie Coates, Virginia Department of Emergency Management
Laura Grape, Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District
Terry Lasher, VA Department of Forestry
Thanh Dang, City of Harrisonburg
Other Agency Information
11:45 to 12 noon Agency Q&A
12 noon to 12:15 PM Grant Writing Tips Writing compelling grant applications – lessons learned
Speaker: Brandy Rosser, Warren County
Page 2
12:15 to 1:00 PM LUNCH (provided) 1:00 to 1:45 PM Stormwater Economic Impact Assessment
How does stormwater spending impact local economies?
Speaker: Dan Nees, Environmental Finance Center 1:45 to 2:00 PM Q&A
2:00 to 3:00 PM Engaging the private sector
The role the private sector can play in helping accomplish your stormwater goals
Moderator: Jen Cotting, Environmental Finance Center
Speakers: Nissa Dean, Alliance for the Bay Engaging the public through community-based projects.
Jacob Powell, Choose Clean Water Coalition Outreach to elected officials through non-profit support.
Shereen Hughes, Wetlands Watch Landscaping opportunities through home owners associations.
Joe Maroon, Virginia Environmental Endowment The role the private sector can play in helping accomplish your stormwater goals
Q&A
3:00 to 3:15 PM Wrap Up, Joanne Throwe
MS4: Regulatory Landscape and
Municipal Responsibilities
Virginia MS4 Phase II Community Forum
June 17, 2013
MS4 Definitions• "Municipal separate storm sewer" means a conveyance or system of
conveyances otherwise known as a municipal separate storm sewer
system, including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch
basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains:
• 1. Owned or operated by a federal, state, city, town, county, district,
association, or other public body, created by or pursuant to state law, having
jurisdiction or delegated authority for erosion and sediment control and
stormwater management, or a designated and approved management agency
under §208 of the CWA that discharges to surface waters;
– 2. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater;
– 3. That is not a combined sewer; and
– 4. That is not part of a publicly owned treatment works.– 4VAC50-60-10
• “Maximum Extent Practicable” or MEP
• “Adaptive Management”
• “Measurable Goals”
MS4s in Virginia
• Phase I MS4s
– Served populations greater than 100,000 as of the 1990 Census
• Arlington, Chesapeake, Chesterfield, Fairfax County, Hampton, Henrico,
Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Prince William County, Virginia Beach
– Regulated by individual permits beginning in the 1990s. Permits issued during
this cycle will be the third round of 5-year permits.
• Phase II MS4s
– Located in Urbanized Areas as determined by the latest decennial US Census
– Regulated under the General Permit for Discharges from Small MS4s
– Current Permit Expires July 2013
Augusta
HalifaxLee
Bath
Scott
Bedford
Franklin
Pit tsylvani a
Wi se
Louisa
Fauquier
Albemarle
Carroll
Wythe
Smyt h
Patrick
Gil es
Floyd
Rockingham
Nelson
Sussex
Henry
Carol ine
Russell
Bland
Craig
Loudoun
Page
Botet ourt
Fairfax
Tazewell
Surry
Amherst
Hanover
Brunswi ck
Accomack
Rockbri dge
Campbell
MecklenburgGrayson
Charl ott e
Dinwi ddie
Amel iaBuchanan
Washington
Bucki ngham
Highl and
Essex
Alleghany
Orange
Pulaski
Southampton
Frederick
Culpeper
Lunenburg
Shenandoah
Madison
Chester field
Stafford
Roanoke
Nottoway
Spotsylvania
Dickenson
Fluvanna
Henri co
Montgomery
Cit y of Suf fol k
Warren
Isle of Wight
York
Appomattox
Clarke
Northampt on
Greensville
Powhatan
Goochland
Pri nce Wil liam
Cumber land
Pri nce Edwar d
Gloucester
New Kent
King Wi lliam
Richmond
Greene
King and Queen
Pri nce George
Lancast er
Middl esex
Cit y of Chesapeake
Rappahannock
West moreland
Charl es Ci ty
King George
Cit y of Virginia Beach
Northumberland
Mathews
Cit y of Newport News
Cit y of Nor fol k
Cit y of Hampton
Cit y of Richmond
Arl ington
Cit y of Danvi lle
Cit y of Lynchburg
Cit y of Roanoke
Cit y of Por tsmouth
Cit y of Pet ersburg
Cit y of Poquoson
Cit y of Staunton
Cit y of Sal em
Cit y of Alexandr ia
Cit y of Har risonburg
Cit y of Bristol
Cit y of Waynesbor o
Cit y of Hopewell
Cit y of Radford
Cit y of Gal ax Cit y of Mar tinsville
Cit y of Manassas
Cit y of Nor ton
Cit y of Franklin
Cit y of Winchester
Cit y of Charlottesville
Cit y of Fredericksbur g
Cit y of Fai rfax
Cit y of Bedford
Cit y of Emporia
Cit y of Buena Vist a
Cit y of Col onial Heights
Cit y of CovingtonCit y of Lexington
Cit y of Fal ls Church
Cit y of Manassas Park
Augusta
HalifaxLee
Bath
Scott
Bedford
Franklin
Pit tsylvani a
Wi se
Louisa
Fauquier
Albemarle
Carroll
Wythe
Smyt h
Patrick
Gil es
Floyd
Rockingham
Nelson
Sussex
Henry
Carol ine
Russell
Bland
Craig
Loudoun
Page
Botet ourt
Fairfax
Tazewell
Surry
Amherst
Hanover
Brunswi ck
Accomack
Rockbri dge
Campbell
MecklenburgGrayson
Charl ott e
Dinwi ddie
Amel iaBuchanan
Washington
Bucki ngham
Highl and
Essex
Alleghany
Orange
Pulaski
Southampton
Frederick
Culpeper
Lunenburg
Shenandoah
Madison
Chester field
Stafford
Roanoke
Nottoway
Spotsylvania
Dickenson
Fluvanna
Henri co
Montgomery
Cit y of Suf fol k
Warren
Isle of Wight
York
Appomattox
Clarke
Northampt on
Greensville
Powhatan
Goochland
Pri nce Wil liam
Cumber land
Pri nce Edwar d
Gloucester
New Kent
King Wi lliam
Richmond
Greene
King and Queen
Pri nce George
Lancast er
Middl esex
Cit y of Chesapeake
Rappahannock
West moreland
Charl es Ci ty
King George
Cit y of Virginia Beach
Northumberland
Mathews
Cit y of Newport News
Cit y of Nor fol k
Cit y of Hampton
Cit y of Richmond
Arl ington
Cit y of Danvi lle
Cit y of Lynchburg
Cit y of Roanoke
Cit y of Por tsmouth
Cit y of Pet ersburg
Cit y of Poquoson
Cit y of Staunton
Cit y of Sal em
Cit y of Alexandr ia
Cit y of Bristol
Cit y of Waynesbor o
Cit y of Hopewell
Cit y of Radford
Cit y of Gal ax Cit y of Mar tinsville
Cit y of Manassas
Cit y of Nor ton
Cit y of Franklin
Cit y of Winchester
Cit y of Fredericksbur g
Cit y of Fai rfax
Cit y of Bedford
Cit y of Emporia
Cit y of Buena Vist a
Cit y of Col onial Heights
Cit y of CovingtonCit y of Lexington
Cit y of Fal ls Church
Cit y of Manassas Park
Chester field
James City
Cit y of Wil liamsburg
James City
2010 Census
• New Urbanized Areas Added Roughly 15
New Phase II Permittees
– DCR contacting and evaluating
– Considerations in new permit
• Increased/Changed Boundaries
of Existing Permittees
Phase I Permit Reissuance
• Arlington County–Coming Soon as Final
• Set Provisions
– Consistency
– Special Conditions: TMDLs
– Retrofits
• Individual Programs
– Tree Planting
– VDOT Outfalls
– Retrofits
Phase II General Permit Structure
• Special Conditions
• Minimum Control Measures
– MCM 1 and 2 Public Outreach/Education
– MCM 3 IDDE
– MCM 4 ESC
– MCM 5 Post Construction
– MCM 6 Good Housekeeping
General Permit Deliverables• 12 months
– Outreach Plan, IDDE Procedures, Inspection
Procedures, Municipal Sites/SWPPP Locations,
Training Schedule
• 24 months
– TMDL Action Plans (before July ‘08, Bay), ESC
Procedures, Good Housekeeping Procedures
• 36 months
– TMDL Action Plans (June ‘08-’13)
• 48 months
– Outfall Map, SWPPP Implementation
GP Measurable Goals
• MCM 1: 3 High Priority WQ Issues
• MCM 2: 4 Local Activities
• MCM 3: Mapping; Dry Weather Field
Screening: <50 all annually; >50 at least
50 annually
• MCM 4, 5: ELGs, Local VMSP Program
• MCM 6: Biennial Training
Beyond Permit Writing:
• Compliance
– Phase I
– Phase II
• Enforcement
– EPA Actions
– DEQ
• Staffing/Resources
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Planning
Scott Crafton, DCR-DSWM, June 17, 2013
1
(Refer to Appendix 5-B, Watershed Based Stormwater Planning,pending 2013 Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook)
2
The Dilemma• Statistics show land consumption increasing much faster
than population growth
• This trend multiplies impacts related to water resources – supply, pollution, stream protection, flood control, etc.
3
Implications for Virginia Localities• “Most new development in
Virginia in recent decades has been haphazard and sprawling, with rapid, far-flung residential and commercial growth, expanded house sizes and business and jobs increasingly located beyond existing communities.”Source: Southern Environmental Law Center, 2007: Transportation and Climate Change in Virginia
Runoff Volume Reduction is the New Virginia SWM Goal
Runoff Reduction is not just infiltration!
InfiltrationCanopy Interception EvaporationTranspiration Rainwater Harvesting Extended Filtration
4
Non-Proprietary BMPs in the Clearinghouse• 1. Impervious Disconnection• 2. Sheetflow to Conservation Area/Filter Strip• 3. Grass Channels• 4. Soils Compost Amendments • 5. Vegetated Roofs• 6. Rainwater Harvesting• 7. Permeable Pavement• 8. Infiltration• 9. Bioretention (including Urban Bioretention)• 10. Dry Swales (linear Bioretention)• 11. Wet Swales• 12. Filtering Practices• 13. Constructed Wetlands• 14. Wet Ponds• 15. Dry Extended Detention Ponds
5
Runoff Reduction BMPs
Typical Development Site Plan
15 Acre Subdivision25 0.6-acre lotsTreatment Volume = 18,100 cubic feet 6
Example Runoff Reduction Site Plan
15 Acre Subdivision25 ¼-acre lotsTreatment Volume = 14,300 cubic feet 7
8
The Virginia Runoff Reduction Method Spreadsheet
1. Post-Development Project & Land Cover Information
Constants
Annual Rainfall (inches) 43Target Rainfall Event (inches) 1.00Phosphorus EMC (mg/L) 0.28Target Phosphorus Load (lb/acre/yr) 0.28Pj 0.90
Land Cover (acres)A soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Totals
Forest/Open Space -- undisturbed, protected forest/open space or 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0Managed Turf -- disturbed, graded for yards or other turf to be 6.0 14.0 20.0Impervious Cover (all soil types) 14.0 14.0
Total 40.0
Rv CoefficientsA soils B Soils C Soils D Soils
Forest/Open Space 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05Managed Turf 0.15 0.20 0.22 0.25Impervious Cover 0.95
Channel ProtectionAllowable QDeveloped = QForested x Vforested / VDeveloped
2.6019,116.22
19.0012,657.08
18.006,459.13
Target Rainfall Event (in)
Drainage Area (acres)
Runoff Reduction Volume (cf)
Drainage Area A
Drainage Area BDrainage Area (acres)
Runoff Reduction Volume (cf)
Runoff Reduction Volume (cf)
The Comparative Spreadsheet NumbersLand Cover ½-Acre Lots ¼-Acre Lots
Forest 1.32 ac. 5.70 ac.
Turf 10.88 ac. 6.97 ac.
Impervious 2.80 ac. 2.33 ac.
Total 15.0 ac. 15.0 ac.
Spreadsheet built-in Env. Site design incentives yield:•22% decrease in post-dev. treatment volume• Less TP load generated by site• 32% decrease in required post-dev. TP reductionThrough site design alone – before ever applyingBMPs to site, can reduce the size/number of BMPsneeded!Concept applies to watersheds as well as sites!
10
Project-by-Project vs.Comprehensive SWM Planning
• Site-by-site compliance with SWM requirements is better than no SWM at all
• HOWEVER, nationwide evidence indicates individual site-by-site control of stormwater discharges is inadequate as the sole solution for SWM in developing watersheds
• Ideally, BMP implementation needs to be designed as a system:– Integrating structural and non-structural solutions– Incorporating watershed goals, site characteristics,
planned land use patterns, E&S controls, aesthetics, water quality monitoring, and BMP maintenance
11
Why Watershed- or Regional-Scale Comprehensive SWM Master Planning?
• To assess and prioritize both existing and potential future stormwater problems– Can focus on distinct issues (e.g., drainage)– Better to be comprehensive, with multiple objectives
(e.g., land use planning, water quality, flood control, TMDL compliance, critical habitat protection, etc.)
• To consider alternative SWM solutions in advance of finalizing a plan
• To consider, in detail, what SWM practices and measures must be provided for to achieve effectiveSWM in the specific drainage area or at large and/or phased development projects
• To achieve cost efficiencies in addressing SWM issues
12
Comprehensive watershed master plans• The most general and extensive type of stormwater master
planning• Assesses existing water resource health• Makes informed land use and stormwater decisions based on
current and projected land use and economic development plans• Typically aimed at maintaining pre-development hydrologic and
water quality conditions through a combination of peak discharge control, runoff volume reduction, groundwater recharge, stream channel protection, and flood protection
• May synchronize to address other goals such as stream corridor restoration, TMDL compliance, historical/cultural resource protection, hotspot identification, retrofit BMPs, recreation, etc.
• Assesses long-term costs and potential funding mechanisms• Provides for opportunity to review and synchronize local codes• Provides opportunity to engage community & other collaborators
through planning process, to build a consensus of support
13
Advantages of the Comprehensive SWM Planning Approach
• Lower capital and O&M costs– Economies of scale– Strategic placement of key “regional” BMP facilities– Cost-sharing arrangements
• Increased SWM effectiveness, optimizing use of on-site, off-site, and regional-scale facilities
• Provides for use of non-structural (ESD) measures• Less risk of negative “spillover” effects downstream• Greater flexibility in ways to satisfy multiple regulatory programs• Can integrate watershed plans with enforceable permits• Can use existing local plan review process to ensure compliance
with watershed plans
14
QUESTIONS?
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Overview of Drainage Projects in Virginia
1
Robbie CoatesHazard Mitigation CoordinatorVirginia Department of Emergency Management
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
• Available after a Federal Disaster Declaration
• Federal Share is capped at 75%• CDBG funds can be used for match• Eligible Project types include minor
localized flood control projects• Projects must be cost effective
2
Data Needed for Application
• Scope of Work• Problem associated with existing
conditions• Proposed solution (should include some
type of preliminary engineering report)• Cost Estimate• Documented History of Damages
• Direct Damages• Indirect Damages
3
Hanover County, VA
Hanover County, VA
5
Henry County, VA
6
Henry County, VA
7
Town of Abingdon, VA
8
Town of Abingdon, VA
9
Challenges
• Data collection• History of events (need at least 2 with
known return periods)• Road Closures• Staff Time• Equipment used• Loss of function (businesses)
• Obtaining easements
10
Questions?
Robbie CoatesHazard Mitigation CoordinatorVirginia Department of Emergency [email protected]
11
Supporting Our MS4 ‐Northern Virginia SWCD’s Experience
Laura GrapeVirginia MS4 Phase II Community ForumJune 17, 2013
Presentation Overview• History of SWCDs• About Virginia’s SWCDs• Modern Traditions: Lessons-learned from NVSWCD• Opportunities
2
3
Credit: Southern Illinois SWCD
4
Credit: VASWCD
About Virginia’s SWCDs
5
• Independent political subdivisions • VA §10.1, Chapter 5
• Non-regulatory, advisory services
• Agricultural and Urban/Suburban Issues
• Locally-Identified Needs
• Implementation of State Programs• Erosion & Sediment Control• Agricultural Cost-Share Program• Dam Maintenance
About Virginia’s SWCDs, continued
• Locally Elected and Appointed Board Members
• DCR Soil & Water Conservation Board• Oversight and Support • Financial support, coordination, information exchange, formation of
districts, adjustments to their boundaries, etc...
• Funding Sources and Local Agreements Vary
6
7
Credit: Potomac Vegetable Farm
Northern Virginia SWCD• Fairfax County – Phase I MS4 community
• ~400 square miles
• Over 1 million residents• >400,000 parcels
• 6 Staff• 3 Technical• 2 Administrative• 1 Communications
8
Tysons Corner (1937 – 1990)
Programs
9
Translating to Phase II MS4s• MCM #1: Education and Outreach
• Newsletters, presentations, programs (Storm drain marking)
• MCM #2: Public Involvement and Participation• Watershed Friendly Garden Tour• Volunteer Stream Monitoring
• MCM #3: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
10
Translating to Phase II MS4s, continued
• MCM #4: Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control• Erosion & Sediment Control• Land Conservation Awards Program
• MCM #5: Post-Construction Stormwater Management• Homeowner Drainage & Erosion Concerns• Demonstration & Implementation• Inspection & Maintenance
MCM #6: Pollution Prevention/GoodHousekeeping
11
Lessons-Learned• Districts have the potential to be very supportive local
partners.• Many already are.
• Could take the lead on some MCMs.
• Recognize where there are existing alignments.
• Utilize District’s strengths.
• Formalize partnership through an MOU & dedicate funding for enhanced support.
12
Laura GrapeExecutive Director
Northern Virginia Soil & Water Conservation District
13
Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program
he Virginia Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is federally-funded and has been administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
(DHCD) since 1982. Virginia receives approximately $17 million annually for this "small cities" CDBG program. Most Virginia localities that do not receive CDBG funds directly from the federal government may be eligible for CDBG funding. There are just under 300 such localities in Virginia. CDBG assistance is available in the form of Community Improvement Grants and Planning Grants. Community Improvement Grants
ommunity Improvement Grants are a flexible tool for community improvement in Virginia. With these funds, localities can provide infrastructure for new or expanding industries,
provide new or improved water and sewer systems in rural areas, rehabilitate housing in declining neighborhoods, revitalize commercial districts, provide support to small businesses, and provide facilities for a variety of needed services, such as health clinics in underserved areas. Applicants are required to prove that their project will meet one of three broad national objectives: principally benefit low- and moderate- income persons, prevent or eliminate slums or blight, or address an urgent community development need (public emergency or health threat). Assistance is provided to units of local government as a grant. Up to $1,000,000 is available for economic development, housing, and infrastructure projects, up to $700,000 for community service facility projects, and up to $1.4 million is available for projects that will comprehensively improve a neighborhood through water, sewer, street, and housing improvements. In cases of two or more localities participating in a project with a regional impact, some grant limits can increase. Most CDBG assistance is distributed in the form of Competitive Grants with proposals due in the spring of each year. As the name suggests, these grants are awarded following competitive evaluation of project proposals. Approximately $8 million will be available for Competitive Grants in 2013. Often, competitive evaluation of a project will reveal that a project is worthy of funding but lacks a key component necessary for the project to be immediately implemented. In these cases, DHCD offers to the locality a Letter-of-Intent (LOI) to Fund. This offer allows the locality until spring 2014 to address the missing key component. Once the project is ready to be implemented by the locality, DHCD makes CDBG funds available from either year in which the project was awarded or from the following year.
T
C
Other funds are set aside in the Community Development Innovation Program. This program reserves $2,050,000 to implement new, innovative, and/or timely community development projects. This fund has four components: the Local Innovation Program, the Self-Help Virginia Program, the Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation Program, and the Supplemental Housing Rehabilitation Program Loan/Loss Reserve and is available on a first-come, first-served basis from January 1 through the end of September. The Construction-Ready Water and Sewer Program assists with community facility projects providing public water or sewer service to communities made up of at least 60% low- moderate- income households. Under this program, $1,000,000 has been reserved to help overcome shortfalls in funding for construction. All other funding must be in place and all design work must be complete. The Community Economic Development Fund is in recognition of the need to be responsive to economic development opportunities in eligible localities. $2.5 million is available for projects involving the location or expansion of a basic industry. Both of these funds are on a first-come, first-served basis from January 1 through the end of September. CDBG funding is also available under the Urgent Need Open Submission Program to eligible localities on an open basis (from January 1 to October 31) to enable prompt response to existing serious or immediate threats to local health and safety. Up to $700,000 is available for each project. Planning Grants
lanning grants are made available annually to eligible communities to help them perform community organizing, preliminary design and engineering, and other planning activities in
preparation for a CDBG construction grant proposal. In 2013, $500,000 will be available on an open submission basis between January 1 and the end of September. Up to $10,000 is available for community organizing, up to $15,000 to conduct community and / or economic needs assessments, up to $30,000 for project planning activities, up to $35,000 for business district revitalization, and up to $40,000 is available for regional project planning. For More Information Contact: Denise Ambrose Chris Thompson Associate Director Policy Manager 804-371-7061 804-371-7061 [email protected] [email protected] Matt Weaver Virginia Department of Housing and Policy Analyst Community Development 804-371-7067 600 East Main Street, Suite 300 [email protected] Richmond, Virginia 23219
P
Examples of projects where significant drainage improvements were included in the overall neighborhood improvement effort.
1) This project was phased to first address the area where drainage was most impactful.
Bath, County of
Stuart L. Hall, Chairman Board of Supervisors
Senate – 25 House – 12
$ 996,838 25,100 27,780
$ 1,049,718
CDBG Weatherization Local TOTAL
The County will substantially improve the living conditions for residents of the Pinehurst Heights neighborhood. The project includes the rehabilitation of 11 owner-occupied low-to-moderate income homes, the substantial reconstruction of four (4) owner-occupied low-to-moderate income homes, the demolition of eight (8) dilapidated structures that are a blighting influence upon the neighborhood, replacement of a sewer pump station and associated electrical components, and substantial improvements to curb and gutters and the regarding of ditches throughout the neighborhood. The project will benefit 60 persons, 47 (78%) of whom are low-to-moderate income.
2) Planning Study in Newsome (Southampton County).
Plagued by poor drainage and standing water; this issue is why DHCD was first contacted. DHCD has agreed to fund a housing assessment to review housing conditions and prioritize potential project areas. Moving forward, if there is significant community interest, proposals for funding may be submitted to address the substandard housing while also seeking to improve drainage issues.
Overall - Drainage / stormwater issues are not a priority for DHCD as stand-alone concerns.
- However, in neighborhoods where there are significant housing issues and these are
driving the project, there may be an opportunity to address other community issues, such as water and/or sewer work, drainage, street improvements, and so forth.
- DHCD funding alone is not sufficient, other resources, including local funds, are
often necessary, particularly to address non-housing issues.
- When utilized, DHCD funding is not driven to help a community meet state or federal mandates; instead the work is focused on benefit to the households.
- Please call to discuss potential projects in the development phase.
Virginia Department of Forestry 2013 Urban and Community Forestry Assistance Program
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Application Deadline: Monday, July 1, 2013
The Virginia Department of Forestry, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, announces the Urban & Community Forestry (U & CF) Grant Assistance Program. The Urban and Community Forestry Grant Assistance Program is designed to encourage projects that promote tree planting, the care of trees, the protection and enhancement of urban and community forest ecosystems, and education on tree issues in cities, towns and communities across the nation. Grants are awarded through this program to encourage local government and citizen involvement in creating and supporting long-term and sustained urban and community forestry projects and programs at the local level. Apply for the USDA Forest Service; Urban and Community Forestry Grant: www.dof.virginia.gov and directly from Grants and Financial Incentives Grant applications are due by 4:30 pm on Monday, July 1, 2013
♦ Request for Proposal may be accessed on the Department of Forestry website at www.dof.virginia.gov, link to “grants” from left panel
♦ To request a hard copy of the 2013 Request for Proposal: call or E-mail Barbara White at 434.220.9041; [email protected]
or Paul Revell at 434.220.9029; [email protected] or Becky Woodson at 434.220.9024; [email protected]
OBJECTIVES of Urban and Community Forestry Assistance Program The specific objectives of the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance Program are to: ♦ Mitigate and adapt to climate change ♦ Protect and improve air and water quality ♦ Conserve energy ♦ Reduce the impacts of land use change, fragmentation, and urbanization on forest landscapes ♦ Improve community health and well-being ♦ Improve understanding of the benefits of preserving tree cover. ♦ Provide educational programs and technical assistance to state and local agencies. ♦ Develop sustainable urban forestry programs at the local level. ♦ Enhance the technical skills of individuals involved in the planning, development, and
maintenance of urban and community forestry programs. ♦ Promote volunteerism and involvement of non-profit organizations in implementing urban
forestry programs. ♦ Build urban forest resilience and mitigate the impacts of invasive pests and catastrophic events.
ELIGIBLE GRANT PROPOSALS AND CATEGORIES Grants may be awarded to local units of government, approved non-profit organizations, civic groups, educational institutions or community tree volunteer groups for proposals which meet some, or all, of
2
the specific program objectives. Non-governmental organizations must be designated a 501-c-3 non-profit organization or submit their application through such an organization or a government entity. The recommended funding range for most proposals is $1,000 to $15,000. The typical proposal is in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. Total project cost (including recipient matching funds or in-kind match) should be at least twice the amount requested.
There are six (6) proposal categories. Proposals will be evaluated and ranked by category. Each proposal category is described below with examples (sub-categories) of the types of projects that might be submitted under that category. ♦ CATEGORY 1 – PLANNING
♦ Open Space Master Plan / Tree Planting/Landscaping Plans ♦ Greenway Development Planning
♦ CATEGORY 2 – NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION SUPPORT
♦ Non-Profit Organization Support ♦ Publications & Communication
♦ CATEGORY 3 – SUPPORT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT URBAN AND
COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAMS ♦ Local Government Staffing ♦ Tree Inventory for Local Government ♦ Tree Board or Shade Tree Commission Development ♦ Public Tree Ordinance/Policy ♦ Urban Forest Protection Ordinance/Guidelines
♦ CATEGORY 4 – EDUCATION
♦ Conferences, Seminars, Workshops ♦ CATEGORY 5 – DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
♦ Technology Transfer ♦ Virginia Municipal Tree Restoration Program
♦ CATEGORY 6 – MISCELLANEOUS
♦ Projects that meet the objectives of the Urban and Community Forestry Program and that do not fit into any of the aforementioned categories, (see RFP for details)
VA MS4 Phase II StormwaterCommunity Forum
Warrenton, VA
June 17, 2013
Thanh H. Dang
City of Harrisonburg, VA
Harrisonburg pop.
49,973 (2011)
MS4 Operators
City of Harrisonburg
James Madison
University
Blacks Run
Impairments
E. Coli
Sediment
Blacks Run CleanUp Day
Purcell Park Stream Restoration
Clean Stream Campaign
Community Solutions to Stormwater Pollution
Rain Barrel Workshops
Upper Shenandoah MS4 Partnership Retrofit
Assessment Project
Northend Greenway and shared use paths
Partners: City Parks & Rec/ Public Works, DEQ, DCR, SWCD, JMU, Harrisonburg HS, others
Started 2001: started as community organized & is now city organized – led by Stream Health Coord.
April 2013: 450 volunteers, 4,600 lbs of trash
Community sponsors/donors – tents, food, supplies, etc.
GreenScene Exhibits and Activities!
GreenScene ExhibitsTrash pick up & plantings Registration, Food, etc.
2005-2009
Partners: City of Harrisonburg, Canaan Valley Institute, Mid-Atlantic Highlands Action Program, Friends of Blacks Run Greenway, The Nature Conservancy, US Army Corps, Valley Conservation Council
Restored ~4,750 linear feet of Blacks Run and two tributaries in Purcell Park
Funded by: Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (~$400K)
5 Before Construction After
Before
Doodie-Free Harrisonburg (flyer)
Harrisonburg’s Best Tips for Yard Care
(booklet)
www.CleanStream.org – clearinghouse for
water quality info
2009-2012
Partners: DCR, City, DEQ, JMU, EMU, SWCD
Partnership for education and stormwater
projects in community
“Install 200 stormwater BMPs on
neighborhood, individual, and watershed
scale to reduce impacts and build community
capacity to sustain continued future BMP
implementation.”
Funded by: National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation - $322K + > 1:1 match
Partners: City, DEQ, SWCD, Clean
Virginia Waterways, etc.
Most popular in Spring
Captive audience for education!
Cost: $50/barrel or less
2012-2013
Partners: Central Shen PDC, City of Harrisonburg, Town of Bridgewater, JMU
Inventory targeted public land for potential stormwater retrofit projects; concept plans for projects, prioritization, planning level costs; “Leadership Work Sessions”
Funded by: National Fish & Wildlife Foundation ($100K)
Consultants: Center for Watershed Protection, Institute for Environmental Negotiation
Partners: City, Northend Greenway (non-profit org), community members
Shared use paths with opportunities for stream repair/restoration, etc.
Need steady funding for staffing, projects, and
programs – stormwater utility?
Integrate SW projects with other Capital
Improvement Projects
Bringing in new partners, cultural change needed
Reaching out to community (property owners,
developers, engineers, planners, businesses, etc.)
Providing program in schools
Explaining the condition of our streams
Trying to provide realistic cost and time estimates
Trying to explain benefits of low impact development
techniques, restoration and retrofit projects
Thanh H. Dang
Public Works Planner
City of Harrisonburg
Thanh.Dang@
HarrisonburgVA.gov
540-434-5928
