|
Rappahannock River
Basin Nonpoint Source Work Group
Active Members:
Eldon James, RRBC Staff
Mac Saphir, Virginia
Cooperative Extension
Denise Harris, Fauquier
County
Kevin Byrnes, George
Washington Regional Commission
Bill Latane, Farm Bureau
Chip Rice, VCU/DCR
Michael Collins, Conserv
Corey Simonpietri, ACF
Environmental
David Nunnally, Caroline
County
John Tippett, Friends of
the Rappahannock
Deirdre Clark,
Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission
Stuart McKenzie, Northern
Neck Planning District Commission
Terry Lasher, Virginia
Department of Forestry
Joe Thompson, Northern
Neck Land Trust
Kevin Utt, Building and
Development Services, City of Fredericksburg
Kathleen Harrigan, Tri
County - City SWCD
Workgroup
Assignments for FY 2009
|
According to the US EPA the Rappahannock
River and the Chesapeake Bay are degraded. Excess
amounts of nutrients and sediment flow into the River and
the Bay from the land and from the air (nonpoint source
pollution) and from wastewater treatment plants and from
industrial facilities (point source pollution). The
Rappahannock "Tributary Strategy" identifies nutrient and
sediment reduction goals necessary to achieve water quality
and aquatic habitat restoration objectives for the Bay by
2010, in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of
2000. Attainment of these goals and objectives will
require a major effort on the part of all levels of
government, landowners and the public. A Summary
Assessment of the Problem that the Work Group is to address: |
NPS FEATURED ITEM:
Water Quality Management in Virginia:
Governmental Responsibilities and Relationships
Originally Prepared By Dr. William Cox in July 2005
The
Appendix is updated by the RRBC staff annually. The
current update is as of July 26, 2010
|
|
|
Problem Statement
The nutrient pollution issues in the Rappahannock are driven mostly by
nonpoint sources, such as agriculture, land development, forestry,
septic systems and lawn management. Nonpoint sources are regulated to a
far less degree than point sources. This means that more effort will
have to be invested on communication, coordination, cooperation, and
incentives to achieve success in addressing the nonpoint source issues
than for the point source issues. The projections for success associated
with various strategies in the RTS are based on the inputs and outputs
of a model. The true measure of success however will be the results
found from monitoring the quality of the waters of the Rappahannock
basin.
A “real world” focus to the implementation of strategies is viewed as
important and essential to maximizing the opportunities for achieving
the greatest possible return on investments made in addressing nonpoint
source pollution. Opportunities to share experiences and to forthrightly
discuss practical solutions will aid all stakeholders in avoiding
possible pitfalls, unintended consequences and the repetition of
mistakes.
The Mission of the Work Group
To provide a forum to discuss the
practical complexities, obstacles and difficulties associated with the
implementation of nonpoint source pollution strategies of the RTS and to
share experiences, both good and bad, to enhance efficient and effective
investment of public and private resources. These discussions will
produce recommendations to the RRBC and state, regional and local
agencies responsible for the implementation of the RTS.
Identified Issue Areas to be
Addressed
1. Clarify the legal authority of various stakeholders to act and
identify where authority is appropriate or inadequate to allow effective
implementation of the solutions identified in the Rappahannock Tributary
Strategy.
2. Encourage “buy-in” of state, regional and local governments and
agencies to the appropriate regulation of land use activities and land
development in support of river-friendly water quality objectives.
3. Is current or planned water quality monitoring going to provide
effective data to evaluate the success of implementing nonpoint
strategies? If not, recommendations for improvements will be made.
4. Identify how to properly document successful and unsuccessful
practices and to communicate those finding to others.
5. On-going assessment of the practicality of implementation strategies
or techniques and providing feedback to DCR and other appropriate
overseers.
6. Recommend how to effectively track changes in land use, and the rate
of change, in the basin and how to use that information efficiently to
make decisions that improve water quality.
7. Provide input and feedback to decision makers on prioritizing the
commitment of resources to maximize results for dollars invested.
It is expected that, over time, issues will change or be added or
dropped.
Previous Meetings and Events
Related Links
Low Impact
Development
 |
