Rivanna River Basin Commission Meeting   8/20/2024

Great, that's the most important thing for sure.

Then we will call to order the RRBC meeting of August 20th.

Thank you all for being here and for others struggling to get in.

We look forward to seeing your faces shortly.

We will skip over the meeting minutes and also the official approval of the agenda, but we'll work with it as a working document anyway.

Do we have anyone from the public who wishes to address us today?

So far.

I do not see anyone, so we may come back for that if we see some new faces come online.

Then since Tanner is here, I think we will go ahead and avail ourselves of his time.

I so appreciate your presence here to help us with the impacts of the Chevron doctrine overruling everything that I've been working on with EPA the last five years.

So take it away, sir, and thank you very much.

Oops, where'd he go?

I'm here, sorry.

And while he's working on that, I just kind of pulled your bio to give a little background on Tanner for everyone.

So he works with William Mullen and he focuses his practice on environmental laws and regulation.

And he has experience assisting in complex federal, state, local, and international environmental matters in compliance assistance and litigation contexts.

He advises clients in navigating a wide spectrum of environmental regulatory issues and programs, including those under the Toxic Substance Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

He also works with clients to maintain compliance with constantly evolving landscape of environmental law and to address emerging contaminants like PFAS.

and in addition, he assists clients with environmental matters associated with business and real estate transactions.

He has his Juris Doctor degree from Elon University School of Law, his Master of Environmental Law and Policy degree from Vermont Law School and his Bachelor's of Arts from Morehouse College.

Yeah, thank you, thank you.

I'm sorry, give me one second.

Yeah, Isabella?

Yeah.

I just want to mention, I was able to get on, but I had to go through the browser.

Okay, so copy that whole link into the browser?

I'll send the note to everybody on that.

Thanks so much, Bea.

You're welcome.

No, it's absolutely fine.

I'm getting everything straight right now.

And this should do it.

Let's see.

Oh, there it is.

I did share.

Yes.

So good afternoon.

My name is Tanner Brantley.

I was introduced.

I'm an associate at Williams-Mullen and Environmental and Natural Resources Practice Group.

Hold on.

So you guys don't have to see me look at my notes.

We'll see if this still works.

Perfect.

Okay, yes, so I am an associate at Williams-Mullen and Environmental and Natural Resources Practice Group.

I want to thank you all for having me and giving me an opportunity to present on the recent overruling of the 40-year precedent.

So, as I said, I will be discussing the impacts of the Loper Wright case, the returning of Chevron doctrine, and the potential impacts for Virginia.

Let's see.

There we go.

Hold on.

So, okay.

So the Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in two cases with Loper Bright Enterprises Inc. versus Romando and Relentless Inc. versus Department of Commerce, Loper slash Relentless.

These petitioners asked the Supreme Court to overturn its decision in Chevron, the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Chevron decision directed that lower courts grant deference, now called the Chevron deference, to an administrative agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute.

The court had not applied the Chevron doctrine since 2016, so there were already rumblings that Chevron could potentially be either limited or overturned soon.

Chevron itself concerned interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act, and many of the numerous cases that cited Chevron afterwards also arose in the context of environmental statutes because Congress wrote the statutes to

accommodate the evolving scientific and technological knowledge and equip the agencies with the power to decide questions that would change over time.

So the Chevron doctrine is known to have two steps.

I use air quotes when I say two steps because there is a step zero aligned with it.

So step zero determines whether the doctrine applies at all.

Chevron analysis is precluded when there is found to be a major question at issue.

So after step zero, you would go on next to step one, which asks the question, has the statute spoken directly to the precise issue in question?

If so, then the unambiguous and expressed, well, if it's unambiguous, you apply the expressed intent of Congress.

If there is any ambiguity or any silence, then you go on to step two.

Ambiguity has been read in a multitude of ways, in many different ways, depending on the court, which

The Supreme Court in this opinion actually addressed.

So going on to step two, if there is an ambiguity and the agency interpretation is reasonable, the federal court requires the court to, or Chevron required the federal court

to accept the agency's construction.

So essentially, if the agency's interpretation was reasonable, it was deemed a permissible interpretation of the ambiguous statute.

This concept was applied to agency interpretation of regulations through Bauer and Kaiser.

So unless it was clearly erroneous agency interpretations, you know, have governed the application of statutes and courts were not in a position to decide the law.

So I do want to point out that Chevron did not apply to informal rulemaking, policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines or agency actions that didn't carry the force of law.

which at that point Skidmore would come into play.

So in Virginia State, Virginia's approach is very similar to Skidmore and it essentially aligns with the approach outlined in the Loperbright opinion.

So Virginia, excuse me.

Yeah, so Virginia respects agency interpretation, but they aren't giving automatic deference.

Really, as I'll discuss more, it's dependent on the law in question and if the law has expressly outlined that deference should be given.

The Virginia Administrative Process Act generally directs judicial review and findings of fact by the agencies.

I will not focus too much on the facts of this case as the Supreme Court did not.

They were primarily focused on overturning Chevron and doing a full in-depth analysis of Chevron and in fact they vacated and remanded the case because the lower courts relied on Chevron.

So the petitioners in those cases challenge a national marine fishery service rule requiring vessels to pay for federal monitors over other boats to monitor compliance with fishery management plans under the Magnusson Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act.

So what was really like the root of the issue is that the monitors could cost up to $710 per day, which could diminish up to 20% of the annual profits of some of the vessels.

The act was silent in regard to shifting the cost for monitors to vessels when there was not federal funding available.

So SCOTUS was looking at can the EPA interpret silence in the statute to require the fishermen to pay for that monitoring.

So the ruling, the court went through a very long and extensive history.

They first started by discussing article three and then it sets out that cases and controversies are to be resolved by the judiciary.

And that final interpretation of laws is set out for the judiciary.

The court looked at, went as far back as Marbury versus Madison and quoted Chief Justice Marshall that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

They emphasized that courts should often pay due respect to the executive branch, particularly when the executive interpretation was issued contemporaneously with the enactment of a statute.

This was a common theme throughout the opinion was the issue of the initial intent of enacted statutes and inconsistencies in agency interpretation that especially when it's inconsistent with an agency determination at the enactment of the statute.

So this opinion reverted back to the Skidmore doctrine, which looks at the various factors, but primarily the thoroughness evident in an agency's consideration, validation of their reasoning, consistency of earlier and later pronouncements, and all other factors with the power to persuade.

They pushed back on the dissent arguments related to the specialization of agencies and why that was important.

Particularly, you know, when we're talking about environmental statutes, you have the case there that it's very highly technical.

However, the court stated that

Judges specialize in interpreting law.

And they address the best reading of statutes and stated that the best reading of statute is one that a court would reach in the absence of an if an agency was involved.

So the court also went back to the Administrative Procedure Act and Section 706, which requires that the reviewing court decide all relevant questions of the law.

and stated that Chevron has failed to address and has really ignored this requirement and caused courts to act out of alignment with the APA.

They specifically said that Chevron has failed to provide a predictable and consistent review doctrine over the last 40 years, which is why it was necessary to move on from Chevron and said that if Congress, really it was a challenge to Congress, that if they disagree, they could enact new legislation reflecting the Chevron doctrine.

So the court was really insistent on, as I stated before, the final interpretation of law is set out for judges.

So it was focused on removing the ability of courts to

to just defer to an agency, especially in terms of it being a policy consideration.

The court didn't find that very persuasive.

They said, you know, when it's the determination of law, the judges should be making those determinations.

They also said that every statute has a best reading and the courts, as I previously stated, are the best venue for to decide that best reading.

So Skidmore courts really do respect agency interpretation, but there is no obligation to follow agency interpretation.

That is a significant distinction in that

It allows the, and I actually noted that in the opinion, that it will review the agency documents and how they came up with their determination, but also noted the ability of the court to review amicus briefs.

There we go.

So at the federal agency level, this opinion basically puts the agencies in a position where they have to be more thorough and provide more support and more consideration of the many comments that are submitted during the notice number periods and have less discretion to really change their

their interpretations frequently, and they have less incentives to stretch the meanings because after this, you know, that deference is no longer afforded to them.

It would go to a court which is going to look essentially in a Skidmore fashion, you know, totality analysis.

Also,

Yes, so because of course we'll be looking at the factual basis that agencies must bolster their reasoning behind the rulemaking.

Virginia already gives weight to agency decisions, but only allows deference in certain circumstances, which, as I said before,

I'll go over in not too long but generally the Virginia Administrative Process Act governs judicial review of agency actions and a major impact is that this opinion potentially empowers courts that were previously hesitant to overrule agencies to step in and you know be more active

As far as enforcement, this also causes the agencies to have clear statutory support and they have less discretion to refer to silencing statute.

Actually, that is one thing I would like to go back to as far as the

opinion, the court was not persuaded that because the statute is silent that it delegates the authority to the agencies to fill in the space where the statute was silent.

The court stated that if

Unless the act specifically empowered that agency to do so and quote unquote fill in the blanks, that did not afford the discretion to fill those blanks just because the statute was silent.

Virginia Administrative Process Act.

Generally, as I stated before, I'll just say BAPA for time, governs judicial review agency actions and places judicial review of administrative agency actions in the circuit courts.

Appellate review is done by the Court of Appeals and in rare cases additional appellate review can be done by the Virginia Supreme Court.

Courts are limited to ascertaining whether there is evidence in the agency record to support the case decisions of the agency acting as the trier of fact.

So

That is more focused like the key on the trier of fact aspect rather than a determination of the law.

The burden is on the party complaining of the agency action to demonstrate an error of law subject to review.

I'll discuss in a second there are five types of agency actions that are exempt from judicial review under APA and I have a quote from a

In this case, under wrap of the circuit court reviews an agency's action in a manner equivalent to an appellate court's role in an appeal from a trial court.

Going on judicial review of an agency decision is limited to whether the agency acted in accordance with law, whether the agency made a procedural error, which was not a harmless error, and whether the agency had sufficient evidential support for its finding of facts.

The five exemptions are agency actions placed beyond the course control by constitutional or statutory authority, which is synonymous to what I mentioned in the Loperbright opinion regarding

when an agency is empowered to do a certain action or make an interpretation or determination.

Actions that involve only an agency's internal management or routine decisions result in resting completely on an inspection test or election except when the agency lacks the authority to conduct that procedure or conducts it arbitrarily which that

falls in line with when it is a question of law, which an inspection test or election is not necessarily a matter of law.

No, that is reserved for the agency, but when it's a matter of law, it's reserved for the courts.

Decisions in which an agency acts as an agent for a court and agency actions that encompass matters subject to a trial de novo in any court.

And another quote, where the question involves interpretation, which is within the specialized competence of the agency and the agency has been entrusted with wide discretion by the general, some of the agency's decision is entitled to special weight.

So I would like to again, key in it's special weight, but it's not necessarily different.

And so a review of an agency's determinations of the law deference is dependent on the law being interpreted.

When an agency has been entrusted with a wide discretion by the General Assembly, then the court will give special weight to the agency's decision.

As I said previously, if there is something in the statute that empowers the agency,

then they will be afforded to the special weight.

Judicial interference is only allowed when the agency's action is arbitrary and capricious and constitutes a clear abuse of the delegated discretion.

If it is an instance in which the agency has been entrusted, if the action is arbitrary and capricious and clearly an abuse of the delegated discretion, thus in violation of the enabling law, then it will allow judicial interference.

The quote there is, only if there is no credible evidence in the records you support the finding and the agency arbitrarily disregarded uncontradicted evidence.

So that gives you a better frame of what arbitrary and capricious is in Virginia.

So the review of agency determinations of regulations.

So I didn't focus too much on this primarily because Loper Bright addressed determinations of laws, agency determinations of laws in the course review of that, but the course will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations in Virginia.

So no deference is afforded if the issue falls outside of the area entrusted to the agency.

The courts have a special competence.

So if it's like a bankruptcy court, then it could fall under their competence.

Purely statutory interpretation by an agency is given no deference.

So if an agency is purely interpreting a law, then they will not be afforded deference.

An agency's legal interpretation of statutes is, as I said, accorded no deference because we have long held that pure statutory interpretation is the prerogative of the judiciary and this Virginia Court should not delegate that task to executive agencies.

So just circling back to what I mentioned in the Loper Bright opinion, where a statute is silent, that does not delegate the authority.

That does not mean that the agency, administrative agency, has then delegated the authority to fill in that gap.

So some limitations on that, but the court is limited to determine whether there was evidence in the agency record to support the case decision of the agency acting as a trier.

In fact, if the court finds in favor of the parties complaining of the agency action, the court shall remand the case to the agency for further proceedings and the validity of any statute, regulation, standard, or policy, federal or state, upon which the agency

The last point I just want to key in that it is addressing

The validity of the statute that the agency's decision is based off and not the determination made by the agency

So just a follow-up, Virginia has multiple cases that have aligned with this process that I outlined as far as, you know, which is very similar to Skidmore.

And I attached some here that discuss agency deference.

So essentially there is little impact, especially because Chevron was related to federal law.

So at the state and local level, there's a limited amount of impact.

And Virginia's approach to judicial review of agency determinations law already aligns with the holding in Loper Bright.

So there isn't a huge shift as in other jurisdictions, which they more in line with the Chevron doctrine.

Also, it's important to note that the cases formally decided under Chevron, they do remain valid.

The Loperbright opinion made sure to state that under starter devices those prior opinions are still valid and that arguments related to overturning those opinions solely because they were based off of a chevron analysis would not be credible.

So, once again, Virginia judicial review is guided primarily, generally by BAPA and relatively, there's relatively well established case law in terms of reviewing agency determinations of law.

Some takeaways are that agencies now have to act with the best reading of statutes and that best reading is returned back to the courts.

They are allowed to, or they have been empowered to determine the best read.

As far as accountability agencies, they need to sufficiently address comments and important problems that have been raised because they are no longer afforded that, you know, these pretty much automatic Chevron deference.

And this opinion really reflected the Supreme Court's eagerness to

Police Administrative Outreach and that has been shown in other cases.

The recent WOTUS case also alluded to this point and as far as Virginia state law said before there's a little immediate impact but there is potential for empowerment of courts

The two empower courts to decide law and something else to be to be noted is that as a result of the Loper Bright opinion

There is a possibility that there will be different interpretations of different best readings in different jurisdictions which could cause the inconsistent application of those statutes.

based on the jurisdiction which will inevitably cause those cases to be appealed and then they would have to go to a higher court to decide and quote unquote fill in those gaps where those laws previously left that to the agencies.

So I will open it up for any questions.

That's my beautiful, beautiful picture.

I'm very proud of it.

And there is my contact information.

So if you all have any questions that you would like to send to me directly offline or after this, then please take my information down.

Wow.

OK, well, thanks for that.

I'm sure that everyone has many questions as well.

And I guess I've been frustrated for years that both Congress and our local General Assembly have left gaps that you could drive a bus through in most things that have been passed in order to get them passed, in order not to aggravate somebody who might go off on a tangent about one particular bit of minutia.

They just leave it out.

So, and I guess I've been participating in and following along with the evolution of the PFAS framework at the EPA for five years.

So how do you

And I think that my understanding of all the process we've been doing is to try to fill in the gaps.

But do you have any particular reflection on that process, for example, because the regulations keep changing as the testing ability gets better, it went from 60 to 10 to four, and we're heading for zero parts per trillion once it can be tested for that.

So how does this decision in your understanding impact something like that?

And if you have a better example, then please,

throw the PFAS aside.

So I would say it's synonymous to some of the like roundup litigation and everything that's being handled.

I know there's a good amount that were handled in Pennsylvania, especially in terms of bioxane and everything like that.

And even where they're

The courts were much more active and more state courts had been more active to

review the entirety of the record than themselves.

So I think that, you know, it's, you know, my soul being in that room, so on, or any of our clients, but it's my interpretation that this decision really just is a reflection of what many courts were moving to anyway.

And in terms of PFAS litigation, it still allows the court to analyze and give weight to some of those agency determinations, especially the evolving ones on PFAS.

It did, thank you.

So this is Tony.

So as you mentioned, if there is state legislation, even though it may be working through the federal courts,

for some nuance or some determination that needs to be made, the federal legislation wouldn't be able to override the state legislation until that happens.

Is that correct?

I want to make sure.

Yeah, so let's say that they're reviewing a particular section and questioning whether there's authority or not authority or whether the interpretation is accurate or not accurate.

But the state has provided definitions that say similar cases making its way through the federal system, through the federal courts.

So the impact would be dependent on how the federal court comes down.

If the lower court is, you know, that opinion is reliant on the determination by the federal court or the

Basically, the federal court opinion would preclude anything different from the state court.

So doesn't it sound as if any particular regulations could be more or less just tied up in litigation for years, if not decades?

That is a significant change.

Yes, yes, yes.

So, and the court somewhat addressed that and yeah, so the courts will be taking a more active role in

at the federal level in particular, but this is pretty much done at state level, but an active role in making those determinations rather than just

for lack of better term passing the book and relying on just the agency determination and puts the judges in a position where they need to do the independent review and an independent analysis of the record and make sure that the agency determinations are

You know, there's a basis for them or the determination that's made.

There's a yeah, there's a compelling basis for them.

Thank you.

I don't I mean, I'd answer is that I don't know that it makes makes anybody feel good, right?

So the court did state that this was a step towards hopefully and you know we'll see in the coming years to through the judicial system to set out some very very clear

interpretations of the laws.

I mean, for example, you know, as I was reading this, I was reflecting on VOTUS and how many times that has gone back and forth based off of the administration.

So the court seemed to allude to trying to avoid like, I'll just call it flip flopping.

by having it go through the courts.

Only if the Supreme Court is that allowed.

OK, great.

Yeah.

All right, other questions on this thorny issue, which is why none of us are lawyers, because we would go completely cross-eyed having to deal with this all day long.

Oh, absolutely, absolutely.

For some reason, I really find joy in selling a lot of stuff.

Oh, good.

Well, that is important to each, you know, find your skills and run with it.

That's fabulous.

Good for you.

Well, thank you again for joining us this afternoon.

And I must say I've had a lot of anxiety about this and I feel a little better in some way.

So we'll have to see how the next round of the PFAS framework stuff goes.

And I do think that the burden does fall on the legislative branches at federal and state levels to get it right, rather than just shoveling stuff out and then leaving somebody else who they can't really trust to do the right thing.

to pick it up, clean it up, make it happen.

So we shall see.

Should be an interesting legislative session.

Now we can see everybody again.

That's good.

All right.

Well, you are welcome to stay and listen to the rest of our meeting if you would like, but I will give you liberty to get onto the rest of your day as well.

No problem.

No problem.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Tanner.

If you could send your presentation over to us, that'd be great.

Thank you.

And it looks like we actually don't have a quorum for this meeting right at the edge.

But good news is that our newly reinstated executive committee can undergo policy updates for the RRBC outside of our regular meeting.

So we'll have another executive committee meeting after this one to update our

All right, did you want to do a quick 30-second thumbnail on the remote participation?

Or it is basically what we've been doing.

We just need to codify it, correct?

I can share the background on that really quickly.

Let me get my screen shared for you all.

But yeah, basically, as part of the updates, the General Assembly, there's just some minor changes to our current policy

Yeah, great.

Ah, thank you for meeting her.

Go for it.

Okay, I think I shared the wrong screen, my accident.

You want me to go?

Yeah, so as Chair Malek said, this is not that big of a deal, but there were some changes in legislation that were approved this past session that necessitated some changes to this policy that you all had adopted a couple of years ago that applies to you as well as any committees that you have under your purview.

It's already in a very similar form except for the name,

has been adopted by the TJPDC Commission.

I think the MPO is gonna take it up at its next meeting as well.

But really just three basic changes that were outlined in the legislation.

One, which would increase from 25% to 50%, the maximum number of all virtual meetings that this body can hold.

There's a couple of references to it right there.

She's highlighting one.

Don't know if it has a practical effect for you all since it's two meetings or 50%, whichever is greater.

The second change really kind of expands provisions about the use of audio and visual technology during all virtual meetings.

It's kind of what I'm calling the camera on for a quorum change because the language that was included in the bills that were approved and they were put into this policy stipulate that if you have the technology available, video technology available and you

You don't have your camera on or you're involuntarily disconnected that you're considered absent from the meeting.

So that really would come into play when you're establishing a quorum or if you needed to have a quorum at some point later in the meeting to take a vote.

And then the third change is really just to, I guess when the original legislation was passed, it said you had to have this policy in place before you had a virtual meeting.

Now the change requires that you adopt the policy on an annual basis, or at least annually.

Thank you.

All members, are there any questions or concerns you wish to share so the executive committee knows what to do to represent you?

I don't see any hands waving.

Okay, great.

Oh, Bea, go for it.

I'd say go for it.

OK.

Excellent.

Very good.

And I do understand the being absent if your photo goes off.

And that's why I always make the apologies.

If I get the little thing that says your video is unstable, I have to go bye bye.

Otherwise, I'm totally on, totally gone for the rest of the meeting.

But anyway, we'll deal with that.

All right.

Thank you, Bella.

That's terrific.

On to staff updates.

All righty, sounds good.

And let's see if I can get the screen shared.

I'm also having technical difficulties.

I might ask you all, one second, let me get it into presentation mode.

I think it's just sharing an individual screen and not my presentation.

So we'll go here.

All right, I think you're seeing what you need to see at this point.

Beautiful.

All righty.

Skipping over what we just went over.

I have a few updates for our 2024 annual conference.

For you all, it will be held September 27th on a Friday from 9.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Carbon Rec Center right downtown.

At the gym and our conference topic will be bridging the gaps, conservation, connectivity, and the future of the Rivanna corridor.

Lunch will be provided with sandwich, cookies, chips, drinks, and fruit for everybody.

And people can opt in for lunch or opt out with a $5 registration for no lunch or $15 for it to be included.

And just a general overview of the agenda.

And what we're hoping to accomplish at this annual meeting is to kind of give an update of what's the current state of the Urban Rivanna Corridor after phase one and two of the Urban Rivanna Corridor plan, what's been happening amongst local parks and rec, local organizations like the Rivanna Conservation Alliance,

The Rivanna Trails Foundation to move forward on those agreed upon community goals and then where are their obstacles and more to dream up.

So we'll start with kind of an overview of the RRBC, revisiting the urban Rivanna corridor plan and what were the key takeaways from that.

with phase one and two.

And at that point this was, phase two at least, was completed in February of 2022.

It was determined that a master plan or some version of a phase three that identified more specific implementation actions and funding sources for such projects be put into place.

But I think

We should check in and see if that's still the way that the community feels is best to move forward.

And then we'll hear more on specific projects that are happening within the urban corridor.

So Riverview Park restoration,

with the Rivanna Conservation Alliance, as well as the Forest Health and Invasive Species Removal Partnership that they're putting together and have put together, as well as more on connectivity on the parks and trails aspects of things, hearing about ecotourism and outdoor recreation, and more about kind of the centerpiece of the

Urban Rivanna coming through our city and urban areas.

and then we'll break and then open up into a larger panel discussion with the previous presenters but also the Rivanna Trails Foundation.

We'll have representatives from the Virginia Department of Health speaking on the Community Health Needs Assessment and how that relates to outdoor access and recreation.

And then dive a little bit deeper with the audience on

their feelings and goals surrounding the Rivanna and finish up with lunch.

And aside from this, on the 28th, that is the annual Loop Deville event, which is held by the Rivanna Trails Foundation to kind of celebrate hiking, walking, running, biking along the trails.

And they've kind of offered to share that space with us, as well as a generous offer from the Rivanna River Company to shuttle local leaders.

It's somewhat size limited just because of the capacity of the shuttle, but we would begin at Riverview Park with a guided walk.

by some of the speakers from the conferences event and then highlight some of the key restoration efforts and identifying additional opportunities for improvement along that corridor and then walking back into the Rivanna River Company for an ice cream social and kind of debrief on what you found from the walk.

as well as opportunity to connect and share your input.

And so that's kind of

The high level update on the conference.

Let me go back one slide because I was just hoping to hear your feedback on if there were any other organizations that you thought should be represented potentially on the panel or

if local leaders from Charlottesville or Albemarle might be interested in being on the panel to kind of speak from their experience during the urban right and a corridor planning process and just river planning in general.

But off the bat, you're planning on updates from each jurisdiction's staff people on for like the first, the second item on your list or led by PC.

So anyway, that I think is really important to sort of get the facts out quickly about where we are and what we've done.

Yeah, and there could be some homework shared out to registration folks in advance about, you know, with the text of the plan, etc.

Yeah, absolutely.

We can do that for sure.

I think that's a good way to get at the issues that people might want to raise.

And you have so much.

Yeah, I don't see my raise my hand option here.

But anyway, yes.

When will these, can we get copies of these that we can download?

Because I've got members of my Pantops CAC, at least I know one member is very involved in the river and the trails along the river and would definitely want, would benefit from hearing about this and was probably going to ask a ton of questions.

So if I can get

That information I have a meeting on Monday that I would like to share this information.

Also, I don't know if you're aware, but the Free Bridge Lane, that that's probably going to get gates put up early fall, so that will become part of

the Darden Trail or the Darden Tow Park, which expands it with without any cars.

That's very exciting.

Yeah, we're working closely with Tim Palladino from parks there, so I'm sure he'll be able to provide an update.

That's really, really exciting news.

Congratulations.

Yeah, and I would just say quickly to the question of Charlottesville participation, I would think staff or elected are happy to participate in any way that's useful.

They actually are.

I just didn't say that.

So that's great.

Okay.

No worries.

My mistake.

Thanks, Michael.

Alrighty.

And feel free to shoot me an email if anything else comes to mind following.

Thank you.

And I see Ann Coats is here.

So if you have ideas, suggestions, or anything, please reach out to me and Bella and we'll go from there.

All right.

Go right ahead with the group.

Are you still seeing my presentation?

We're still on the Riverwalk.

Here we go.

That's it.

Beautiful.

So a quick update on our watershed implementation plans, PDC locality implementation funding.

It has a long name, but it's how the PDC provides support to our non-MS4 portion of the region to improve water quality towards our local streams and the greater Chesapeake Bay as defined in the Clean Water Act.

Thank you so much, Tanner.

Bye-bye.

So annually,

The typical budget has been $72,500 with a little over $14,000 in local support and the rest from DEQ.

And beginning in 2018, we focused more on community engagement, sharing information about best management practices and being a liaison between DEQ and our local jurisdictions on developing implementation plans to improve

local streams.

And it's transitioned over the course of the last two years to kind of ramp up towards increased best management practice implementation in our watersheds to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act by 2025, which it's looking like we're not going to meet those goals and there needs to be a slight change in course.

And additional funding is one of those changes, of course.

So before I get into a little bit more detail on that, I just wanted to give a little overview of some of our successes as part of our 2024 scope of work.

We successfully hosted in partnership with the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, a rain barrel workshop in Nelson County.

We worked with the master gardeners, local parks and recreation, and Devil's Backbone Brewery to provide this to the community, share information about how they can convert a recycled barrel into a water conservation resource at their home.

and talk to them about the benefits that provides to them for washing their cars, watering their gardens, also for the larger watershed.

And it was a great partnership opportunity to kind of get folks involved in different aspects of conversation in front of community members.

And it's also a very physical kind of large intriguing object that kind of incites conversation amongst

Those who see them.

So it was a really great experience and we're excited to be able to ramp those up in coming years.

And then we are supporting septic repair and pump out projects through our housing foundation grants or partnership with housing foundations at the PDC through HPG and home funding.

And we've just begun uploading those completed projects into the CAST model or the Chesapeake Bay's model

showcasing how best management practices reduce pollution to the bed.

And that's been helpful to capture information related to septic repair, which you'll see more about in the next slide.

We updated the grant resource that we upload annually, and I'll be sure to share this PowerPoint with you for you to access and reference it, but it's about

There are many grant opportunities available for individuals up to local governments, to water authorities to improve the health of our watershed and then continuing partnership with roundtables, the stormwater partnership, soil and water conservation districts and Friends of the Rappahannock to build capacity and identify needs for best management practice implementation.

So

Moving into 2025, we have the same baseline funding allocated to us as in since 2018.

But what's changed now is that there's an additional $3 million pot of funding competitive amongst the PVCs to apply for additional implementation practices.

So now we're kind of stepping outside of community engagement.

alone and more into those tree planting projects, those green infrastructure design projects, green roofs, but also green water harvesting systems, things along those lines.

And so part of our plan for this expanded bundle of funding for 2025 that we will be sharing more with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission

in the September meeting, and then sharing with DEQ as well in September for their feedback.

Will be the TJPDC's pilot septic pump-out project, which will support 50 septic system pump-outs in 2025, partnering with local groups, potentially the housing foundations or others as identified to provide low-income homeowners

septic pump outs at no cost.

And septic pump outs, but also septic repairs and replacements are a huge need across the region identified in our watershed implementation plans.

And this is kind of our first step dumping our toes into the water and kind of gathering this experience working with local partners.

But as we learn more,

There may be greater opportunities to move away from just pump outs, but more into repairs or connections to public sewer, things along those lines.

And then, as I mentioned,

We had the one successful rain barrel workshop last year.

I partnered on two others in Charlottesville and Albemarle County.

But we are going to be ramping up to provide rain barrel workshops, one per county, in the non-MS4 area.

Charlottesville already is having them done with their water conservation staff as well.

Partnering with the James River Association, the Friends of the Rappahannock, Soylent Water

Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water and most likely Culpepper to do this across the region.

And then we just recently are exploring an opportunity to partner with Friends of Rappahannock on a stream bank restoration project.

So that's the one $3 million competitive funding amongst the 15 PDCs.

and we may be able to support additional implementation projects as identified and this source of funding is likely to be available in coming years as well so just making sure you guys have on your radar that there's new funding available for implementation projects so as you identify pipeline projects or projects of interest please do communicate those and then

Also within the last two weeks or so, we were just made aware of an additional funding source through the round tables.

And we're a part of the middle, James.

Yeah, so you said that you have money for implementation of BMPs.

So it seems like there's some overlap there with certain water conservation districts, which are already doing the same projects.

And so some septic pump outs, for example,

Yeah, so my understanding, and I'm definitely open to more conversation in this realm for sure, but is that the soil and water conservation districts receive funding for the certain implementation plan areas.

So I think like the hardware river is one that receives funding for septic repairs and humpouts and the like.

and I believe there's a certain match that's required.

And we've kind of identified this need through our work with the housing foundations in the home and the HPG programs.

There's a lot of home rehabilitation work that's going on.

And a lot of times the septic repair projects are really dire needs because it's a public health issue.

It can impact your well, things along those lines.

and so the home and housing funding has been going to provide these low-income homeowners with repair for no cost but it can also be used for lots of other home repair projects and so as this new source of WIP funding has become available that's not just restricted to those implementation plan areas and it's a bit more

As long as it's meeting a best management practice goal, it can be funded.

So I think we're trying to kind of meet the gap in serving the low-income homeowners and completely covering the cost for septic pump-out projects.

And as we are able to kind of grow capacity and understand whether we can complete

Septic repairs or removals things along those lines.

Yeah, so first a mission comment from Ann Coats that MASH is no longer required for our DEQ implementation programs.

But then also say too that in the past, we have actually at the conservation districts had district-wide funding for septic repairs.

That money has gotten spent really super fast, but it has been there.

So it is a little concerning.

I mean, I mean, ultimately, it's, you know, the important thing is that people are getting the help they need and the watershed is getting the help that it needs.

So, you know, don't want turf battles over, you know, who gets funded for what.

But at the same time,

I would hate to see a situation where conservation districts and TJPDC are competing for the same funding to do the same thing and then have redundant staff basically doing the same work.

Lonnie, Lonnie this is Ann.

Thanks for bringing that up and thanks Isabella.

Yeah definitely maybe we could do is set up a meeting with Sarah Sen who manages a majority of our septic programs right now.

You all probably know we've had these septic programs for greater than 20 years and it's included the hardware which is current but it's been a number of other areas as well.

and I think that there's ways we can collaborate just like on the rain barrel.

There's certainly more than enough work that's needed and septic is a high priority I think and it should be for the community so you know I could easily envision there being multiple agencies involved but maybe we could define since the Rivanna tends to have people that are closer to the city

You know, certainly getting people connected is probably something you're going to have, you might run into more often than we would in some of the really rural areas.

So, you know, there could be ways where we work together to say, you know, this could be, you know, primarily one of your focuses and, you know, but there's lots of ways to work at it.

But definitely there's plenty of work.

There's probably not enough funding to go around.

but I think that that's something we hopefully can continue to request of our legislators to find more funding for it because there's definitely a need and we did include that in our legislative agenda this year to increase funding for more septic and that could include you know for anybody really we just think that there's there's that much of a need for it so

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

Yeah, applaud your work on it.

Absolutely.

I'll follow up directly after this.

And something about this funding available for PDCs, which I'm sure is similar

to the soil and water conservation district situation is it's available for pass through.

So we can be administering these funds, ensuring that the pump out projects are inputted into the BMP warehouse.

But that doesn't mean we're identifying the contractors or working with the homeowners directly.

And that's, I think, a better position for the soil and water conservation district.

Absolutely.

So I look forward to continuing that conversation and figuring out how we can

Yeah, I think also add BDH and Josh Kirtley to your list of partners as well, because they a number of years ago had a similar repair funding, which I think evaporated or was used up very quickly.

I mean, 50 pump outs is for 120,000 people in our just the two jurisdictions is a tiny number.

So there'll be plenty of work for everybody to

work on and I really appreciate that.

One question you can think about and get back to me another time, for the data for the Ches Bay data set, do you get any information from the pump out haulers as far as even if it's not, you may need to have exact locations, but if you don't, at least can you get regents things from them since there probably are fewer than 10 companies who do this around here.

as far as the numbers of places and sort of geographically where they are.

I'm so sorry.

Somebody joined in the meeting and was like projecting music.

I don't know what happened there.

So I kind of missed the portion of your question.

Yeah.

And I think the clarifying question would be when you were asking for the haulers, are you talking about the number of locations they haul from?

Yes.

Okay.

So I think with pump outs,

We do know the address for every location that we're doing the pump out so that information I'm assuming would be available to Isabella as well.

But typically what we don't have is the people who don't even know where their septic tank is and have probably never had a pump out so they're definitely not going to be

on the haulers report even if you know even if they weren't getting funded through us but that does bring up a question is there could be a lot of people out there that are getting pump outs that don't know about the program or don't request funding and so that would be an interesting number but I'd say on on large part you know what we're still finding and we still find straight pipes

even in Albemarle County.

So there's definitely a strong need for more attention on the septic issue all over the entire region for PDC and the solar water.

And those straight pipes go right into elements of our drinking water watershed.

And it is enough to make you really unhappy and sad.

So thank you very much.

As I said, there's plenty of work to go around and I'm really excited that you're working on all these different elements.

Sorry about the technical difficulties there.

And okay.

Yeah, I look forward to continuing that conversation and figuring out how we can kind of maximize our efforts based on the current roles.

There we go.

So I was just going to mention the issue of voluntary BMPs.

It's always been a challenge in terms of tracking, which is kind of what you just brought up.

I mean, that might be an interesting role that TJPDC could play is finding a way to produce a survey of people who have adopted voluntary BMPs without

I'm receiving funding for it, because we have a whole list of BMPs in our area that people could do.

Somewhere in your files, Bella, is work that

Ian Garnett did as a contractor going to making a list of data set of the farm BMPs that had not been done through state and federal so that those could then be impeded.

That was good 10 years ago at least.

So some of those, and maybe Farm Bureau could help with gathering that information on a more updated element because many of the leadership of the Farm Bureau this year are definitely

interested in buffers and water systems and that kind of thing.

So that's good.

All right.

Ann, you had your hand up.

Maybe not.

Okay, so let's see.

There we go.

The host, it looked like the host had to unmute me.

Oh.

Yeah, so what Lonnie was suggesting I think kind of came from that septic conversation, but just to be clear what he means is voluntary, truly voluntary, where most all of the work we do right now is voluntary already, but there's an incentive payment.

so it's for the ones that are doing all this work out there that never come to us there are a lot of you know whether it's cattle out of streams or whether it's septic there are definitely a lot of people doing this work and we've heard from the Department of Conservation and Rec that this would be a significant contribution towards the Chesapeake Bay model if we could figure out a way to capture it so

I'm happy to talk, Isabella, with you about more ideas on that.

But I think that what Lonnie's bringing up is a valid point and could have a significant positive impact on the progress that's being made.

Yeah, thank you both.

Taking notes and looks like we have a lot to talk about.

I'm just looking forward to that.

I'll just finish the last little slide that I had for you all, or the last bullet of my slide, which was that there's a new funding source that's very similar to the one I just referenced, the new pot for PDCs that's now available for watershed roundtables.

So we're a part of the Middle James Roundtable and the York River Roundtable, which covers Louisa County.

And the Middle James covers all of it in a very small portion of Louisa County and about half of Greene.

And there's a funding source for best management practices for $1,000 to $100,000 there.

So just wanted to make sure that you all are aware.

And again, this can be passed through funding.

So it could be partnering with the different community groups, soil and water conservation districts, water authorities, local governments to implement these types of projects.

And then we're open to our round table.

Thank you.

All right.

Are there staff or representatives from other jurisdictions who want to report on anything today?

I will go last.

Eric Dahl is

their, the county's administration.

And he had followed up with me actually just earlier today.

And they were kind of in question with DCR as to whether they needed to restart the process or pick it back up from where it left off in 2019, when it got stopped due to COVID.

And it looks like they will be beginning the process from the beginning.

Yeah.

got left off there.

And I know Albemarle was considering at least looking into whether that was a possibility within Albemarle County.

I don't know who you're asking, but without Lynn Crump's advice, I wouldn't know what to say.

So I think we need to get, I mean, who is her replacement at DCR?

Do we know yet?

Lonnie, did you have something to add?

I mean, there we go.

Takes a while for them.

So, so I was gonna say just on the Albemarle County side, and we do have, I mean, first of all, I'm strongly in support of Scenic River designation hardware.

Remember that

the wetland that you and I visited together on the hardware with the small fur coats and the purple fringeless orchid.

So there's definitely natural resources of state importance along the hardware and in Albemarle County.

So I probably said it before, but I'll just say it again.

I think that it's definitely a denoting of scenic record, scenic record.

Steenick Status in Amherst County.

Recognition.

There you go.

So maybe the Natural Heritage Committee can help us.

But so, Bellow, just for process-wise, we will wait for Fluvanna to assemble some facts and kick the can to us.

And then we will pick up and do our side.

And so we're not going round and round in circles.

OK?

And sorry about that.

I was I was unable to unmute myself, but I think Bella covered most of the things that we do have to sort of start back over.

The other thing that I can add is that he's also he reached out to a Fluvanna property owner, Andrew Wilson, upstream from Route six to see if anyone else was up further upstream who had access to it.

I think that's just to to to get into the river itself.

So that's that's sort of where we are right now.

Except under the Carter's Bridge, there's probably an easy access under the VDOT right-of-way.

And maybe others, I'm just not a winner.

Yeah, that'd be good, yes.

OK.

All right, thank you.

Hopefully Lynn crumbs replacement in.

And you can't hear me now because I'm, there we go.

Anybody else after Fluvanna who wants to go next?

All right, well, I will jump in and just leave a plea for

Everybody putting your brains to how we can get water conservation to be a fact of life every day for everybody.

Because this summer, again, has been debilitating and so much hotter than it was in 2002, three, and four, that it's made me very aware of the fact that it's not just the same 20-year interval for a serious drought.

This is a whole different ballgame.

I was discouraged and sent an email query off to Michael Roband, head of DEQ after the email came out over the weekend that, oh, no problem.

Your problems are over now.

No more drought.

Well, baloney on that.

I sent him three years worth of data from my farm and said, our streams are still dry.

This is, please, what are you doing?

And so he clarified a bunch of things about the,

Drought assistance that's available through USDA and Farm Services, that if it's ever been declared, then that process at least is safe, which was a concern for my neighbors who were trying to continue with the process to get the, to replace the winter feed that they've been using this summer.

So anyway, that's just, I think that we need to somehow find the magic to reach our urban,

people who don't have the well and whose mother would have tanned their hide if they had left the water running when they were brushing their teeth as a kid because those kinds of suggestions that are made for water conservation are pathetic and they'd be laughable if they weren't so ridiculous because we have to do more significant things like that with irrigation, with street washing, the building washing, the things that are allowed and exempted are so-

All right, well, I'm going to stop talking with that.

And then we'll see.

So are there any other things to share for the good of the order or any topics we would wish to work on before our next meeting?

And congratulations on all your work on the conference.

I'm really looking forward to that.

And I love the fact that you're bringing it home to the locality.

And hopefully, we'll get a lot more people who just come because it's right there on their doorstep.

It's not so much something far away and weird and hard to understand.

And hopefully this packaging will be something that can be replicated in Greene and replicated downstream at Fluvanna as well.

Absolutely.

And on that note, I'll follow up with our presentation materials from today and the registration link and the Facebook.

So you guys can share that amongst your networks and organizations.

Thank you all so much for your time today.

Thanks for being here.

Bye-bye.