Report to the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Board of Directors, September 2016

VCAP Updates: Response among Chesapeake Bay districts and partner agencies continues to be positive, with concerns mainly focused on staff time required and “return on investment” for small projects. The program is largely seen as a chance to solve small-scale erosion and drainage issues, build connections with constituents within districts, and improve overall health of the Chesapeake Bay. Since launching VCAP under CBIG, the Program Coordinator has presented the program at more than fifty events, including area meetings, district board meetings, partner events, and conferences.

Statements below cover the progress made toward the stated deliverables related to our grant. These include all six month deliverables, as the most recent DEQ deadline.

·  Rank and approve at least 15 additional VCAP applications from at least four different SWCDs (total of 30 applications and 8 different SWCDs). Applications have been reviewed by the Steering Committee and approved for 55 projects in 10 districts - Thomas Jefferson, Piedmont, Culpeper, Tri-County/City, Shenandoah Valley, Hanover-Caroline, Henricopolis, James River, Lord Fairfax, and Headwaters.

·  Visit at least 15 SWCDs to promote program (and provide technical assistance as needed). Between March 2016 and September 2016, the VCAP Coordinator visited 22 Chesapeake Bay districts and has 4 of the remaining districts planned in the coming weeks. The VCAP Coordinator has also maintained regular communication and outreach with all 30 Chesapeake Bay districts.

·  Conduct one additional workshop or webinar (total of at least two). In addition to the VCAP Basics Overview Webinar hosted at DEQ, the first four VCAP Technical Training Modules have been presented. These were held in Prince William, Hanover-Caroline, Shenandoah Valley, and at Graves Mtn. Total attendance has averaged approximately 23 district staffers per training, with total representation from 21 of our 30 Chesapeake Bay districts.

·  Appoint a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review technical components of the program and provide technical recommendations to the Steering Committee. The VCAP Steering Committee selected a variety of district, industry, and engineering experts and invited them to join the VCAP TAC. A total of 13 qualified individuals accepted the invitation and the first and second meetings were held on April 8, 2016 and June 23, 2016 in Charlottesville.

The Steering Committee has continued to work with the Program Coordinator and have been integral to the continued success of the program. Under their guidance, we continue to meet and exceed the first year’s deliverables (by the end of December 2016), as laid out in our grant agreement with DEQ.

Budget for Current Grant Cycle & 2017 Projections: Currently, CBIG funding for VCAP totals $475,000 during calendar year 2016. These funds are divided into four expense areas, including Administration of Program by Steering Committee ($26,667 remaining out of $50,000), Technical Assistance/Training Support for Districts ($89,164 remaining out of $100,000), Program Start-Up/Coordinator ($50,042 remaining out of $75,000), and Cost-Share Payments ($105,365 remains unallocated out of $250,000). DEQ has indicated funding for the first half of 2017: $750,000 with $500,000 of this towards cost share, available to us as early October 2016. (See the Treasurer Report for a full VCAP income/expense report.)

Bay District Status: Our 30 Bay districts currently fall into three VCAP categories: 1) Developed – District staff have been in communication with Program Coordinator, have attended at least one VCAP training, and the Program Coordinator has visited the district to begin building relationships there; 2) In Process – District staff have been in communication with Program Coordinator and attended at least one VCAP training; 3) Needs Development – District has no involvement with the VCAP program.

Developed: 20
Culpeper / James River / Peanut / Shenandoah Valley
Eastern Shore / Lord Fairfax / Peter Francisco / Thomas Jefferson
Hanover-Caroline / Monacan / Piedmont / Three Rivers
Headwaters / Natural Bridge / Prince William / Tri-County/City
Henricopolis / Northern Virginia / Robert E. Lee / Virginia Dare
In Process: 7
Appomattox River / John Marshall / Mountain Castles / Tidewater
Colonial / Loudoun / Northern Neck
Needs Development: 3
Mountain / Peaks of Otter / Skyline

This is one area where VASWCD Board Member involvement can be particularly impactful. Scheduling district visits and submitting VCAP applications all take time, but are of great value. Please encourage districts that fall under “In Process” or “Needs Development” to become stronger advocates of the VCAP program!

Program Outlook:

·  Equine BMP’s – DEQ has asked us to put a hold on this effort and not include the equine component as a practice in the new upcoming grant cycle. DCR is pursuing a manure transport practice for use as a nutrient management program like poultry litter. DEQ believes we need to continue the dialogue on development of this practice and what it would mean for VCAP before we immediately pursue. It’s a conversation we should continue and even consider pursuing NFWF pilot funds for, of which DEQ is supportive, but not a practice to include in the VCAP program manual at this time.

·  Living Shorelines – DEQ requested we include this as a new practice in the manual, perhaps as its own new BMP. The manual requirements could state that a SEAS consultation and design would be required. DEQ suggested we work with experts and the TAC to determine cost-share rates because funds could be used quickly. With assistance from SEAS and VIMS, DEQ is confident we can include this in the new grant cycle.

·  Pet Waste Stations – Originally part of the VCAP program but eliminated in our current grant cycle. This practice is still unable able to be included in the VCAP program as no credit is awarded in the Bay Model for pet waste stations. Likewise, VCAP should be more modeled as a residential homeowner program and this doesn’t fit that bill.

·  Urban Nutrient Management – DEQ would like to see this as a condition in order to be eligible for VCAP funding. It might mean a signed commitment that the homeowner agrees to apply UNM principles when fertilizing and the VCAP steering committee will contact Derik Cataldi for assistance in developing an extra outreach form to include for signature when an individual signs-up initially for VCAP.

·  COIA – Based on district interactions with OAG, no directors, associate directors, or staff should participate in VCAP. We’ve further had the question raised about whether state employees can participate in VCAP or any cost share program and have reached out to James Davis-Martin for clarification. Note from our meeting in August with James Davis-Martin, initial feedback on re-opening the COIA language to allow the exemption for district officials and staff to participate in VCAP, TMDL programs, 319 and other cost share programs was not met with concern or opposition. Our Legislative Committee has recommended including this in the VASWCD Legislative Agenda.

·  Land Disturbing Activities – Originally the issue of Chesapeake Bay Preservation areas and requirements for permitting for practices above a certain size was of concern and warranted the question of a code change. After discussing with James Davis-Martin who suggested rather than pursue code change it would rather be advisable to simply keep VCAP practices under 2,500 square feet. Our Legislative Committee knowing this chose not to recommend it for inclusion in our VASWCD legislative agenda. Likewise, current efforts underway may remedy this problem on its own.