SWAG Technical Sub-Group– Update - vtwaterquality.org

SWAG Technical Sub-Group– Update

July 9th, 2008 Meeting
Laundry Building Conference Room, State Office Complex, Waterbury, VT

Attendees: Mark Vorhees, Breck Bowden, Craig DiGiammarino, Kim Greenwood, Mary
Watzin, Christy Witters, Emily Schelley, Eric Perkins, Dennis Lutz, Megan Moir, Tim
Clear, Jenn Callahan, Padraic Monks, Jeff Nelson.

Monitoring

Biology
The BASS lab will be resampling all impaired streams this season (2008). Additionally,
the group agreed that key stations of the impaired waters should be sampled annually and
intensive sampling would need to be done prior to the start of adaptive management.

Impervious Cover
ANR has mapped the impervious surface area of each stormwater-impaired watershed.
The impervious surface mapping was mapped using QuickBird satellite imagery. This
project has been completed in conjunction with the Rubenstein School of the
Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont. The data varies in age
depending on when the image was acquired, as summarized in the table below. The
group recommended that the data be updated every 5 years, and be current within 5 years
of commencing implementation.

Watershed(s) Collection
Indian, Sunderland, Date
Morehouse Brooks
Allen Brook 4/16/2005
Munroe Brook 4/16/2005
Rice & Clay Brooks 9/12/2005
Roaring Brook 7/26/2007
Moon Brook 9/10/2003
9/7/2005
Deerfield Brook Summer
Munroe, Morehouse,
Sunderland, Indian Brooks of ’08?

8/23/2003

Stream Flow and Precipitation
ANR hired a consultant to establish and operate stream flow and precipitation recording
stations within each of the stormwater-impaired waters for 2005. Additionally, the
Department contracted with the University of Vermont to do three additional years of
streamflow monitoring ending with the 2008 season. The group recommended
continuing this effort indefinitely.

The importance of identifying an appropriate flow characteristic to monitor for evaluating
progress towards achieving the flow target was discussed. Possibilities include
calibrating the model via several runoff events to increase confidence in its predictive
capacity; evaluation of rainfall to runoff ratios; and development of appropriate statistical
measures to evaluate trends in the flow duration curve. Further exploration of these
methods is warranted.

Stream Geomorphic Assessments
ANR has contracted with UVM and several consultants to develop a consistent baseline
of stream geomorphic assessments (SGAs) for the stormwater-impaired streams.
Currently all 17 of the stormwater impaired streams have completed Phase I and II SGAs.
Geomorphic adjustment will likely occur over a long period of time therefore completing
full Phase I and II SGA within a 10 year period would not be a useful indicator. The
group recommended selected SGA indicators that can be linked to biological habitat be
measured on annual basis.

BMPs
ANR is currently collecting technical data for all existing significant stormwater
treatment practices (including ponds, infiltration basins, constructed wetlands, etc…) in
impaired watersheds. Technical information including pond volume, drainage area and
detention time is being collected through permit review. This data collection will be on-
going throughout implementation on any new or upgraded BMPs.

There may be merit in evaluating the performance of individual BMPs, either existing or
proposed, as part of special study. Such a study would likely focus on the hydraulic
functioning of detention or infiltrative practices.

Adaptive Management Decision Plan

“Adaptive management is a systematic process for continually improving management
policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of practices and programs that are
underway.” – taken from The Promise of Adaptive Management by Mary Watzin.

The group discussed developing an adaptive management plan. The key components of
this plan would be:

Time interval - establish a schedule to assess the effectiveness of implementation.
Information gathering – measuring indicators (e.g. flow)
Acceptable levels – define acceptable measures for those indicators
Framework for decision making - What decisions will be made? What is the
criteria for making those decisions?

In the next Technical sub-group meeting, the group will try and define these components.

Financing Sub-Group Update

July 9th, 2008 Meeting
Laundry Building Conference Room, State Office Complex, Waterbury, VT

Attendees: Jenn Callahan, Mark Vorhees, Eric Perkins, Jon Groveman, Megan Moir,
Padraic Monks, Dennis Lutz, Dawn Francis, Jim Pease, Emily Schelley, Christy Witters,
Kim Greenwood, Craig DiGiammarino.

The primary characteristics that hindered implementation success were lack of
data and lack of funding. – The Center for TMDL and Watershed Studies at Virginia Tech “TMDL

Implementation – Characteristics of Successful Projects”

An estimate for Potash Brook, one of the largest watersheds, estimates the cost of
implementation at $26 million. This price is based on one possible scenario, and the final
cost will be adjusted based on the types of best management practices used and how
implementation is structured. While the exact costs for remediating all 17 of Vermont’s
stormwater impaired waters are not yet known, it is certain that the cost will be
substantial.

Is it appropriate for ANR to consider financing?
While there are no legal requirements for ANR to consider how implementation will be
financed, there is strong support for identifying the complete range of funding options
based on the acknowledgement that adequate financial resources are required for
successful implementation.
Funding Sources

Some sources of federal and state funding were discussed at the sub-group meeting.
• Federal 319 grants were discussed; these are federal funds which are given to the

states to award to projects. These funds cannot be used for federal permits but
could potentially be used for implementing a state permit. However, there are
limited funds for this grant and preference is usually given to voluntary projects,
not projects required by regulation.
• Examples of State Funds that were discussed were the Orphans program and the
Underground Storage Tank replacement fund which is funded through a gasoline
tax.
• A State Stormwater Tax was discussed which could have the benefit of
addressing issues in non-impaired waters to try and prevent additional streams
from being impaired due to stormwater.
• A Statewide Bond could be acquired however given the current economic
environment it is unlikely that the state could take on anymore debt.

Utilities
The group discussed the possibility of forming a utility to fund the implementation of the
TMDLs. A utility could be formed at the municipal level or at the regional level.

• Significant time and effort goes into setting up a utility. South Burlington took
years and $50,000 for a consultant, AMEC Environmental, to guide the process. If

municipal-level utilities are expected, a similar process would have to be engaged
in with communities.
• For a utility to form, there should be some sort of incentive to the municipalities,
such as a guaranteed source of funding.
• A regional utility could be formed that could handle some functions more easily
and cost effectively (i.e.leveraging and distributing funds, inspections, permitting)
then the municipalities could handle individually. Municipalities could get some
benefits of being in a utility without having to form one of their own and still be
able to control most of their day to day activities, such as maintenance.

Sources of Expertise
A desire was expressed to include other parties in the funding discussion, citing a lack of
knowledge about the workings of federal, state, and local funding processes. Suggestions
included, Environmental Finance Center in Maine, Vermont Legislature, Vermont
League of Cities and Towns, State Treasurer’s Office, and Vermont Municipal Bond
Bank. Additionally, the group discussed bringing in a party with expertise on forming a
utility such as AMEC.

Phasing/Staging Sub-group – Update

July 16, 2008 Meeting
Hazen’s Notch, Waterbury VT

Attendees: Emily Schelley, Jenn Callahan, Mary Borg, Craig DiGiammarino, Jim Jutras,
Alan Shelvey, Padraic Monks, Megan Moir, Kim Greenwood

Staged Implementation – Implementation of a TMDL through several distinct stages.

EPA recognizes that some TMDLs will require “staged” implementation, particularly if
they include nonpoint sources, and that in many of these cases the staging will be
significant. This staging can also go hand in hand with adaptive management, such that
some clearly needed control measures are implemented, while others await additional
information.

Staging Under Federal Law
• Staged implementation is most often considered in the context of TMDLs
involving nonpoint sources
• NPDES permits issued to implement a TMDL must include limits to meet any
specified WLA for the discharge in order to be considered “consistent” with the
TMDL and meeting water quality standards.

Staging Under State Law
Vermont Stormwater Management Rule for Stormwater-Impaired Waters provides:

• General permit shall be reasonably designed to implement the TMDL taking into
account the unique characteristics of the watershed, the scientific uncertainly in
remediation stormwater-impaired waters and that the time needed for remediation
may vary greatly across watersheds

• General permit may include any “requirements deemed necessary by the
Secretary to implement the TMDL,”

• General permit can be written for a period longer than 5 years – allows for
flexibility and phasing of implementation within permit.

Potential Basis for Staging
The stages of implementation could be based on a number of different factors. Cost,
availability of funding, municipal vs. private discharges, implementability, and BMP
effectiveness might form the basis for .

Time Frame for Staging
The group discussed the need for a reasonable time frame for implementation. The
amount of time needed may vary depending on the watershed. Some watersheds may be
able to be reasonably implemented in 5 years while others will not.

Regardless of what the basis and time frame for is, a desire was expressed in all groups to
have a complete implementation plan developed upfront, which explained the framework
and basis for staging. Additionally, the first stage needs to implement enough of the
target to be able to show progress towards the target

Re-Occurring Themes

Throughout the sub-group meetings, a few common themes developed. All groups
discussed the possibility of forming a utility, “fairness”, staged implementation,
stakeholder involvement, and the issuance of permits.

Utilities
The groups discussed the formation of a utility to help with the funding and
implementation of the TMDLs. The collective thought was that utilities would be a good
way to help get at the “fairness” issue which was another topic that came up in all sub-
group meetings. Additionally, a regional utility could handle some functions more easily
and cost effectively (i.e. leveraging and distributing funds, inspections, permitting) then
the municipalities could handle individually. Municipalities could get some benefits of
being in a utility without having to form one of their own and still be able to control most
of their day to day activities, such as maintenance.

Staged Implementation
Staged implementation is implementation of a TMDL through several distinct stages.
EPA recognizes that some TMDLs will require “staged” implementation, particularly if
they include nonpoint sources, and that in many of these cases the staging will be
significant. Staging can also go hand in hand with adaptive management, such that some
clearly needed control measures are implemented, while others await additional
information.

Staged Implementation was discussed in all groups. The discussions focused mainly on
the basis of staging (i.e. cost, implementability, etc.) and the time frame for the different
stages. Regardless of the basis and time frame of staging is, a desire was expressed in all
groups to have a complete implementation plan developed up front, which lays out all
stages needed to meet the targets. Additionally, a desire was expressed that the first stage
of implementation should include enough work needed to be able to show progress
towards the target.

Stakeholder Involvement
The different subgroups discussed the need to work with local groups to craft an effective
implementation plan. Who should be involved and at what point in the development
process they need to be involved still needs to be discussed. However the consensus was
that the implementation of the TMDLs will be much successful if local groups get
involved.

Permits
All subgroups questioned how the permit requirements are going to be structured. Would
targets be divided up at the parcel level or the subwatershed level, to allow for greater
flexibility? Would municipal sources have a separate target from private sources?

Additionally, many expressed a need for more flexibility in BMP design than the current
manual allows. By restricting permittees to the BMPs described in the current manual, it
was felt that creative (and potentially cost-effective) fixes may be overlooked.