Rappahannock River Basin Commission
June 12, 2013; 1:00 PM
Christ Church School
Middlesex County, Virginia
LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS:
Senator Emmett Hanger
Delegate Scott Lingamfelter
Ms. Jennifer Peters for Delegate Margaret Ransom
Delegate Keith Hodges
LOCAL GOVERNING OFFICIALS:
Mrs. Margaret Davis, Essex County
Mr. Joe Grzeika, King George County
Mr. Pete Mansfield, Middlesex County
Mr. Jeff Black, Caroline County
Mr. Jason Bellows, Lancaster County
Mr. Steve Nixon, Culpeper County
SWCD MEMBERS:
Mr. Mac Saphir
ON PHONE (MEMBERS):
Delegate Michael Webert
Mr. Jonathan Weakley, Madison County
Delegate Ed Scott
STAFF MEMBERS:
Mr. Eldon James
GUESTS:
Mr. David Nunnally, Caroline County
Mr. Dwayne Roadcap, VDH
Mr. Dudley Pattie, Rapidan Service Authority
Mr. Gregg Zody, Orange County
Ms. Susan Connors, USACE
Mr. Mike Darrow, USACE
Mr. Matt Walker, Middlesex County
Mr. Jim Pyne, Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Mr. Kevin Byrnes, GWRC
Mr. Emory Rodgers, DHCD
Ms. Susan Douglas, VDH
Mr. Kevin Utt, City of Fredericksburg
Mr. Corey Simonpietri, ACF Environmental
1
Mr. Shawn Simonpietri
Mr. Bill Latane, Farm Bureau
Mr. Mike Collins, Conserv
Michelle Edwards, RRRC (on phone)
Chairman Grzeika called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and also led the
Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. He welcomed the Commission to Christchurch
School and thanked the representatives of the school for then use of their facilities.
It was determined that a quorum was present.
Mr. Bellows moved that, in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3708.1.A.3,
Rappahannock River Basin Commission member Delegate Ed Scott of Madison County,
Delegate Michael Webert of Fauquier County and Supervisor Jonathan Weakley of
Madison County have notified the Commission that they must participate by telephone;
Delegate Scott is calling from Orange County, Delegate Webert is calling from Fauquier
County and Mr. Weakley is calling from Madison County, and that we have made
arrangements for Delegate Scott, Delegate Webert and Mr. Weakley to be heard by all
persons at this location. Delegate Lingamfelter seconded the motion. The motion was
approved unanimously by the Commission.
Review and Approval of the Agenda - Delegate Lingamfelter made a motion to
approve the agenda as it was presented and Mr.Nixon seconded the motion. The
Commission approved the motion unanimously.
Adoption of Minutes from March 20, 2013 Meeting - Mr. Nixon made a motion to
approve the minutes as they stand and Delegate Webert seconded the motion. Delegate
Lingamfelter abstained from adopting the minutes. The motion passed.
Public Comment - No comment at this time.
Rainwater Harvesting and Use, the Health Department Perspective - Susan Douglas
& Dwayne Roadcap, VDH
Ms. Douglas discussed the law for rainwater harvesting. She said that human use of
rainwater is looked at it from a public health perspective. She reviewed some of the
different modalities of diseases commonly found in water that can be contracted through
drinking, absorption through the skin and through breathing. Ms. Douglas discussed the
potable water and the drinking water standards which are administered in Virginia by the
Department of Health. She also noted some of the key concepts for stormwater and
rainwater and their different distinctions. Ms. Douglas defined the terms ‘stormwater’
and ‘harvested rainwater’, as well as ‘reclaimed water’ and ‘reuse’ and what the use may
be. She also discussed the guidelines, published in 2011 and where they are available to
be reviewed. She explained the interagency coordination and the various regulations
including potable water with private wells, waterworks regulations, and sewage handling
and disposal regulations. She also announced that there is a memo of understanding
2
between the two agencies (VDH & DEQ) so they do not overlap.
Mr. Roadcap (VDH) discussed some of the uses and challenges. He said one of the
challenges is when someone wants to harvest the rainwater for potable use. He pointed
out that VDH has guidelines for the potable use by homeowners. He gave some real life
examples including a regional jail that uses harvested rainwater for irrigating the lawn.
He said where you tend to see the rainwater projects in commercial settings versus
homesites. Mr Saphir raised the issue of rainwater harvesting for livestock. He said that
NRCS refused to provide technical assistance to farmers to develop cisterns to capture
and hold rainwater for livestock. He said that NRCS has said it must be potable water –
suitable for human consumption. Mr. Spahir asked Mr. Roadcap it VDH has such a
restriction. Mr. Roadcap said VDH does not preclude the use of captured rainwater for
livestock. Mr. Saphir repeated that the federal technical assistance agency (NRCS) has
refused to assist with design because they clam it can not use potable water. Delegate
Lingamfelter asked Mr. James to assist Mr. Spahir in communications with VDH and
NRCS to resolve in a common sense manner. Chairman Grzeika said this is an item the
RRBC needs to look at and try to help clear up for the future.
Mr. Mansfield said he called the VDH and asked what the salinity was for well water use.
The VDH has a recommendation for this but it is true that they do not have the total
dissolved limits for this.
Rainwater Harvesting and Use, the Department of Housing and Community
Perspective - Emory Rodgers, DHCD
Mr. Rodgers said in the current building code they put in an appendix that gives guidance
to builders and vendors who want to install non-potable systems. He said in the current
update to the building code DHCE is working with VDH and DEQ to broaden the
opportunities to safely use rainwater. He said it explains the components and materials
required if a rainwater system is to be installed. He said when this code update goes into
effect, sometime in 2014, it will incorporate the essential elements to permit, install and
inspect. He said the discussion on using rainwater as potable water will be laid on the
table for now. He said in the future we will work together with VDH and others on this.
Mr. James asked if there is anything that can be done legislatively that would assist in
moving this forward. Mr. Rodgers said the because of where one agency’s
responsibilities stops and another’s begins it may be necessary when the issue moves
back to the front burner in the future. Mr. Roadcap added that a question from a public
policy perspective is does the Commonwealth want the health department to have
something more than just guidelines. Chairman Grzeika noted the health department
relies on someone getting sick before they release the guidelines. Mr. Nixon asked why
he would have to get a permit to water his lawn. Mr. Rodgers explained a permit is
needed if the irrigation system is tied in somehow with the building system. He added if
you are not tying it in that has nothing to do with the building code.
Discussion of Potential Next Steps to the Rappahannock Rainfall, Stream and
Water Quality Gauging Analysis - Staff
Mr. James reviewed with the Commission what the next steps could be for the
3
project. He reviewed a table with the priority order for the stream and rain gauges. He
said this also provides some value for water supply purposes. He added that the
Technical Committee recommends the Commission consider identifying a capital project
that works down the list of the 14 priority sites for gauges located within the upper and
middle basin. He said during the preliminary contact with VDEM, it was felt that they
could drive down the cost as what was predicted in the USACE initial report. He said if
the Commission approves the Technical Committee can do some additional work to come
up recommend a project for consideration at the September RRBC meeting. Mr. Black
asked why there are rain gauges outside the basin. Mr. James said the study had
identified that rain gauges in those locations would provide rainfall data that can indicate
potential for localized flooding impacts in the middle portion of the Rappahannock.
After some discussion Mr. Grzeika said he felt the consensus of the Commission is see
what is a workable next step to move forward. Mr. Nixon asked about the cost and where
to get the funding. Mr. James said we will look at more specific opportunities to cost
share. Chairman Grzeika said Mr. James should work on this with the Technical
Committee and bring something back to the Commission in September.
An Explanation of USACE Study, Research and Construction Authorities and
Applicability to the Rappahannock Basin - Susan Connor, Chief Environmental
Analysis Section and Mike Darrow, Chief, Water Resources Division, USACE,
Norfolk District
Chairman Grzeika explained the next agenda item and why the RRBC has asked the
Corps to review this topic with the Commission. Mr. James said in previous discussions,
there was some confusion and said there needs to be a clear understanding what can and
cannot be funded. Mr. Darrow said he would start with a 10,000 foot look at what the
USACE does and what they do nationwide and Ms. Connor will discuss what they can do
in the District. Mr. Darrow discussed the organizational chart and what the Norfolk
District does including a lot of military construction. He reviewed how the Corps of
Engineer is organized by watersheds and is governed by specific funding lines. Mr.
Darrow discussed the USACE Program Areas and how they are investing approximately
a billion dollars a year in the Norfolk District including infrastructure and civil works
programs including navigation, hydropower, flood damage reduction and water supply
and regulatory responsibilities. General Civil Works is 4-5 billion across the nation and
he discussed some of these programs and innovative ways to help out communities
depending on scope and the need of the community. He discussed the mission lines of
civil, military and regulatory, which covers the entire District. Mr. Darrow explained that
the civil works has five different boundaries with five different bosses. He discussed the
boundaries of military construction boundaries including Arlington Cemetery, and
reported on the millennium project to produce another 20 years of the cemetery for burial
including some of the property from Fort Meyer. He discussed some of the flood damage
work at Virginia Beach and environmental restoration with oysters and Lynnhaven
projects.
Delegate Lingamfelter said he feels in Virginia they have done some good work with
oyster restoration. There was some discussion on the USACE approach to oyster
restoration and the Chesapeake Bay program that has a very robust approach with the
4
private sector participating. He said he hopes the USACE would take the same approach.
Ms. Conners said they are working with VMRC on the rotational grounds associated with
the Oyster Heritage Program. She said that even though the Corps is biased toward
investing in oyster sanctuaries they do recognize that Virginia makes it a priority to
support the commercial fisheries. The Corps supports what Virginia is doing with
rotational harvest efforts but the Corps can only use a portion of their funds to support
this. They have discussed putting some of the funds toward rotational harvesting and
restoration. Delegate Lingamfelter pointed out the results and asked should we do more
for harvesting, so there is more filtration in the bay. He said he hoped that looking at the
results and that should drive the policy to produce more oysters to help the bay. Ms.
Connors said they also give habitat for other ecosystems and the filtering. Delegate
Lingamfelter said he may introduce some legislation to establish a study of this issue. Ms.
Connors said they are presenting at an upcoming meeting with VMRC to discuss
rotational harvesting. Mr. Darrow said his boss is onboard with protecting the ways of
the watermen and the complete mission of the Corps.
Ms. Connors said she would get into the details of the studies. She said she is review
each study type that can be applicable to the RRBC. General Investigation Studies are
large projects specifically authorized by Congress dealing with multiple water resource
issues. They included: flood risk management, navigation, water supply, recreation and
other needs and opportunities. Alternatives are compared, costs and benefits of each are
identified and a specific course of action is recommended to Congress. Congress may
then authorize and fund a construction project. She stated that the water supply is not
largely federally funded. She said this can be included in the study. She said the
Chesapeake Bay has already been noted as a priority and that is how the projects are
being moved forward more quickly. She discussed the traditional process to get to
construction. Ms. Conners discussed the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) through
which Congress has provided standing authority to study and build specific water
resources projects for specific purposes and with specified federal spending limits.
Current higher priority CAP authorities include: Section 14 Emergency Streambank
Protection, Section 103 Shoreline Protection and Section 205 Flood Control. Ms.
Connors said it takes usually 3 years from study to implementation because they are
limited in scope. Ms. Connors reviewed some of the studies such as Scuffletown Creek
and other construction sites. She discussed the 704-B oyster restoration program and how,
for the past 5 years, they have received close to 10 million to construct oyster restoration
projects. This includes 75 federal and 25 non federal sponsor projects in the
Rappahannock River and in the Great Wicomico and Lynnhaven with Virginia Beach as
a sponsor. Mr. Nixon asked if an oyster sanctuary can get out of hand and could it be too
prolific causing navigational problems or shoreline issues. Mr. Darrow discussed some
of the navigation areas such as Baltimore and how to work around the issue. Ms.
Conners said they are working with many agencies to make sure in Lynnhaven to not
have that problem. Mr. James reminded members of the VMRC presentation last
December and how the sanctuaries and harvest areas are located next to each other to
provide a balance. Ms. Connors said an outcome is building successful reefs. She
discussed Section 22 - Planning Assistance to the States and explained that the difference
in this authority is it is just a study and planning authority with $25-100,000 per
5
individual study. The Rappahannock Gauging Evaluation recently completed is an
example. She reviewed some of the studies with potential for positive Chesapeake Bay
TMDL outcomes. In FY11, working with Virginia Beach, they assessed the potential of
oyster reefs in the Lynnhaven and in FY12 they studied harvested wetlands. The two
studies concluded that there is great potential with both practices for Virginia Beach to
achieve positive TMDL outcomes. She said these are just a couple of examples. Mr.
Saphir asked about phragmites and how they are being used. Ms. Connors said they have
studies for biomass and other options.
Discussion of Potential Next Steps to the Basin-wide Water Resource Planning
Opportunities to Integrate TMDLs into a Comprehensive Water Resource Plan for
the Rappahannock Basin - Staff
Mr. James said if we go to the next step in the General Investigation process and thatin
step fits the programmatic goals of the Corps, this may be a place to invest funds. We
must meet their programmatic goals and to meet our needs, which are similar but they
don’t exactly align. What drives us here in order to make the best water quality decisions
moving forward in order to make the Chesapeake Bay TMDL benchmarks for the
watershed. He added that water quality and water supply goals are not the basic need for
the Corps but that ecosystem restoration is a priority. In the course of discussions two
potentials rose to the top. One is an examination of where wetlands restoration is needed.
It meets the needs of the Corps and it has clear water quality benefits. Mr. James added
that Mr. Hershner (VIMS) has relayed his belief that there are many opportunities across
the basin. The other potential that has been expressed is determining if there are other
opportunities within the Rappahannock for oyster restoration. It would seem that can be
accomplished in a way that meets the goals of both the USACE and the RRBC. A
question to answer is to determine the opportunities for cost-effective nutrient and
sediment reduction while supporting oyster habitat restoration. Chairman Grzeika asked
if there is enough interest to continue talking about a next step in the General
Investigation process to develop a draft cooperative agreement with funding identified.
Can the RRBC and the Corps continue to work together to meet respective goals of all
the localities, the General Assembly and the Corps. Mr. Saphir said not all areas of the
Rappahannock have the interest in oyster restoration and something that might appeal to
a broader base would possibly work better. Chairman Grzeika suggested we do not have
to choose. Mr. Collins said the project could first look at the entire basin and look at the
project cost effectiveness different practices to meet the TMDL targets. This would give
planning data on an array of choices and not focus on one over the other. Ms.Connors
said they can try to scope the study to meet the various needs. Mr. Grzeika said it is
important to note that we are not qualified at this stage to rank one approach over another.
Mr. Collins noted that this is one of the first times ever to take gray infrastructure and
compare to green infrastructure, and compare what gives us the best return on investment.
Mr. James added the best return on investment applies to both the value of ecosystem
restoration (for the Corps) and in improving water quality from a TMDL perspective (for
the RRBC members). Mr. Byrnes added that the information could be useful in
leveraging other investment such as from the private sector. Ms. Davis pointed out that
for the lower basin the study should also identify opportunities for improved access to the
waterways. Ms. Connor said recreation (access) is not always funded for it is not a high
6
priority. Mr. Nunnally discussed a program given by VMRC with the living shoreline
practice with a softer shoreline and more natural setting. It is a priority practice as
identified by VMRC. There was a question of timeline and can the RRBC make a
decision in September. Senator Hanger said he likes both ideas and for the Commission
to authorize the chair and staff to come up with a memo of understanding that is required
for the Corps. Ms. Connors suggested a letter of intent for the Corps. Senator Hanger
suggested that the Commisionm authorize a letter of intent. Mr. Saphir expressed support.
Chairman Grzeika said it is important to understand, as a basin, to keep our eyes open to
make sure all organizations get their ideas to the RRBC. After some discussion a question
was raised about water supply and Ms. Connors said they can look at water supply within
the study but federal funds are not there for water supply implementation. Mr. Nixon
urged that they only include a few ideas because it will have to be cost shared. Mr. James
said he will work with the Corps and the Chair to develop a draft that can be brought
back to the September meeting. Ms. Davis reiterated that Essex County supervisors are
very concerned about water access.
Financial Report - Mr. James reviewed the financial report. Mr. Saphir made a motion
to receive the financial report and seconded by Mr. Bellows. The Commission approved
the motion unanimously.
Consideration and Adoption of FY2014 Budget - Mr. James reviewed the proposed
work plan. He explained that based on recent events and discussions the work plan
includes some time for water supply discussions. Mr. Nixon made a motion to accept the
work plan and budget as they stand and Mr. Saphir seconded the motion. The
Commission approved the motion.
Mr. Mansfield asked each member to look at information that has been provided on the
challenges we face in the lower portion of the basin with overuse of the water from the
Potomac Aquifer and that he would like to have further discussions at a future
Commission meeting. Senator Hanger pointed out that the Virginia Water Commission
is looking at the issue and there is concern of the impact on all of Tidewater Virginia
including the lower Rappahannock.
Status Update on RRBC FY13 Work Plan – Mr. James said that all members had
received the Work Plan Report and that he is available to answer any questions.
Future Meeting Dates and Future Agenda Items:
September, 18, 2013 - Culpeper Workforce Development Center
December 4, 2013 - Richmond
March 26, 2014 - Middle Basin
June 18, 2014 - Lower Basin
Identification of Potential Agenda Items for the September 18 RRBC meeting:
• Technical Committee recommendations on Stormwater Management
• Water Supply
• Continued Discussion from the USACE
7
• Report back on gauging study
• Mr. Utt said he wanted to brief the Commission on the Greenfield grant that the RRBC
approved
• Mr. Collins with Conserv to bring to the Commission on small volunteer market based
projects
A motion was made to adjourn by Mr. Saphir and Mr. Nixon seconded the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30.
8