Rivanna River Basin Commission Meeting   8/19/2025

to our folks.

But I would just like to welcome DEQ staff.

We have Justin Williams, Laura Christian with the Office of Local Government Assistance joining us to share a little bit about the powers of the Chesapeake Bay preservation areas and how they can benefit your locality.

Good afternoon.

I am Justin Williams.

I manage the Office of Watersheds and Local Government Assistance, which includes our Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act program.

I have with me Maura Christian, who is a liaison.

I think there's some feedback.

I'm not sure if you all are able to hear me.

Maura Christian, who is a Bay Act liaison, but also our Bay outreach coordinator.

She does outreach to entities such as yourself, PDCs and others to help with Bay efforts, particularly related to implementation, PDC funding, IIJ funding.

So she's joining me today.

I was invited to kind of provide a little bit of an overview and background on the Bay Act and particularly looking at answering the ability of localities outside.

outside of the identified areas in the statute to expand and include provisions from the Bay Act in their programs.

So I do have a presentation.

I'm just gonna go ahead and share my screen.

So I think as some folks may know, but just by way of context and background, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is adopted in 1988, established that it applied in the as defined Tidewater localities.

That's the cities, counties, and towns, essentially east of 95 and north of 64.

There's 17 cities, 29 counties, 38 towns, and it covers the eight

Planning District Commissions in those areas.

And you can see those larger county localities highlighted there.

These are the localities that under the Act are required to establish a program.

The Act overall had the goal of recognizing that healthy state and local economies and a healthy Chesapeake Bay are related and balanced economic development and water quality protection are not mutually exclusive.

The Bay Act is very different than a lot of our other environmental programs established by the General Assembly or federally.

It is a state program established in statute, but it is implemented by the locality with DEQ providing compliance oversight and technical assistance, and I'll talk some more about that.

Essentially, the Bay Act created a comprehensive enforceable non-point source pollution prevention program.

It's one of the first in the state.

In fact, it was the statute prior to E&S and stormwater

that looked at land use planning and non-point source pollution as a part of development.

It recognized for the localities to use their existing and inherent authorities around subdivision ordinances, zoning, and otherwise to be able to implement the program.

And it focused on preserving existing vegetation buffer and those features that provide water quality benefit overall to the bank.

So as I mentioned, the framework does establish that DEQ has oversight with locality implementation.

The localities are the ones who actually adopt the programs and implement the day-to-day reviews and approval.

So we do not have direct oversight of any individual projects, approvals, or reviews, but we do conduct compliance reviews of a localities program holistically, provide technical assistance and if available from EPA financial assistance, and of course develop regulations

and guidance for those localities implementing.

Just to kind of talk about, because this will come important when you talk about the locality implementation outside of the Bay Act, just to understand the program requirements and what adopting a program or all of the Bay Act would entail.

One of the local program requirements that serves as the fundamental for the program is the identification of Chesapeake Bay preservation areas.

which are resource protection area, resource management areas, and if identified and recognized in the locality, intensely developed areas which overlay RPAs, and I'll talk about those areas a bit more in a minute.

It does require the incorporation of performance criteria, specifically water protection measures and to plan ordinances and policies.

So there is a component that requires updates and inclusion of water quality considerations into the comprehensive plan.

But primarily it's focused on establishing performance criteria for those areas, which then get incorporated into a zoning subdivision and plan of development review process and ordinance.

That's primarily the resource protection area.

That includes tidal wetlands and shores, non-tidal wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to water bodies with perennial flow, and the 100-foot buffer, which is primarily what we focus on because there is, of course, large overlap in jurisdiction with these primary feature components.

So most of the criteria and consideration is in that 100-foot buffer.

to adjacent to those features.

And it does by virtue of being an RPA have a lot of more restrictions around it, which I'll talk about compared to the other area, which are resource management areas.

And those are really that have the potential for causing water quality degradation to the functional value or impact the RPA itself.

Those tend to be contiguous to the inland boundary of the RPA.

And it doesn't strictly have

Restrictions on development or other types of bacteria but provides instead general performance criteria, categories that are identified as RMAs or 100-year floodplains, highly erodible or permeable soils, steep slopes, non-tidal wetlands that are not included in the RPA and then also can be a distance from as well.

And I think we have a question.

I can stop for questions as we go if that works better.

Well, they have to be, they have to be one of those categories or they can be other lands designated by the locality.

And that's frequently where they will add a foot, footage to the RPA.

But typically when you look at the categories otherwise like floodplains, the types of soils and so forth,

Those typically do abound what would otherwise be the RPA.

The localities can designate additional sensitive areas as well.

But you can have RMAs that are not entirely directly connected to RPAs.

And in fact, most of our jurisdictions actually just do a jurisdiction-wide RMA designation.

So to get to point of one of my questions, so let's say that, you know, because the RPA is inside the RMA, well, the Amagesha there, you have the RPA inside the RMA.

If someone was to, let's say, remove a stream, you know, through a permitted process to remove a stream that was an RPA, the RMA would still remain, correct?

If it still met the features or the designation by the locality, it would stay.

So,

because you could have a permit, for example, that addressed or essentially removed or allow for the removal or filling of an RPA feature, let's say, for example.

And that RPA then and buffer component is then addressed and ceased to exist by virtue of that.

That area could still be a 100-year floodplain, for example.

Well, so there's a couple of different components to that question when you say DEQ allows.

So the BAICS program does not have direct oversight or requirements for management of the features.

That's covered by either the Corps, the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program,

and or VMRC.

And they're the primary jurisdiction, for example, with wetlands that and the VWP program for wetlands and stream when you're talking about the ability to fill with conditions and that's covered in that permit program.

We do not supersede over or replace or otherwise, you know, provide any additional

restrictions on the actual feature component where it's permitted and addressed by that other body.

Now, oftentimes those projects may require locality approval and that's where this is a locality implemented program.

And so depending upon what additional activity was being proposed in the back to the buffer, the locality would have its own oversight over that project.

But the fact that something is an RPA perhaps to the part of your question in the VWP permit program is not

termination for permit allowance for permit issuance or not.

OK, and then going back to resource management areas, I saw that James City County had some very interesting rules about requiring a certain percentage be impervious surface.

What are the guidelines for research management areas and low impact development?

Correct.

So under the RMA, and we'll get to that actually, it's the performance criteria.

So let me skip ahead because that starts to get into performance criteria for these areas that will speak to that of how it's implemented.

So I think everybody is probably pretty aware of why it becomes important in the key functions that buffers serve for non-point source reduction.

And in fact, our regulations provide an established reduction for both sediment nitrogen and phosphorus as a result of the marker.

So to speak to your question, there is within the Bay act, what's known as the general performance criteria.

And that specifically has the requirement that the locality

adopt provisions that minimize land disturbance, preserve indigenous vegetation, and minimize impervious surfaces.

Oftentimes, localities by virtue of things around parking lot limitations, for example, canopy establishment requirements, prohibitions on removal of certain types of trees, will adopt those provisions to meet this general criteria.

So while they'll say, for example,

In reviewing a project that the project itself may need to minimize or reduce more of its impervious, it's tied frequently to independent requirements in their ordinance that speak to these general criteria.

And that's how James City County does what you're speaking to.

A lot of localities have canopy, as I mentioned, canopy requirements.

A lot of them have restrictions on not removing

a tree of a certain size that's in the RMA.

Those are all examples of how they are demonstrating that they are applying this criteria generally to all Chesapeake Bay preservation areas.

The additional general requirements is that of course the Bay Act and the accompanying requirements in the ENS and stormwater programs lower the threshold to 2,500 feet for ENS and stormwater review.

We also require a plan of development review process.

There's septic pump out requirements.

So every septic pump out in the Bay act area, those localities is to be pumped out every five years with alternative drain fields and other provisions identified.

There are provisions around agricultural conservation assessments, working with DCR, looking at the resource management plan and conservation plans they do.

We do have a civil cultural exemption with streamside BMPs and work with forestry.

to ensure that those requirements are met and then there is a requirement to have evidence of a wetlands permit required prior to clearing.

Now once you're into the specific RPA, there's development criteria.

So let me back up there.

Did that answer your question about James City County?

Yes, yes it does.

And I've wondered about other things too, like for example, could a locality require a hundred foot buffer around

and their RMA around the, you know, when a stream is buried, you have those grates where the stream is below ground, but the grate goes directly into the stream.

Well, so the RMA has, so it,

Part of the difficulty in answering that question is when you talk about locality authority, we talk about what the Bay Act requires.

All of this is done through zoning.

So we don't ever speak for locality with their power or authority, but I guess to speak to kind of get to what you're speaking to.

If it was a resource management area, they can put additional restrictions around a resource management area that are tied to those general criteria, right?

Preserving, maintaining, and so forth.

I'm assuming that's the kind of action you would have to meet.

Now, how far, for lack of a better phrase, can you go out from that?

That would be up to a localities attorney, right, as to where you can set those bounds within the zoning authority and the Bay Act working together, because obviously we are a Dillon state.

I'm not aware of any localities to do that.

Some localities will extend and cover or address intermittent streams, which we do not.

So that would be more of an example that we see

But even just the identification countywide by a jurisdiction of an RMA is more expansive and more stringent and localities have and can do that.

And you are allowed to do that.

But obviously each scenario or each provision is a little unique because it has to operate within the bounds under the Dillon rule of both the Bay act and the locality zoning.

So I'll go on to talk about the RPA criteria if that answered the RMA provision.

So this is the heart of what we do in the Bay Act program is focusing on this RPA development and particularly the buffer, of course, where the development's occurring, in addition to requiring that it complies with the general criteria that we spoke about so that the development has to minimize impervious, maximize

The preservation of vegetation, there's additional restrictions around it.

There has to be local government approval.

The allowance or permitted use or development is much more limited.

There has to be a site-specific delineation or determination of that RPA based on certain site conditions.

So while a locality will map their Chesapeake Bay preservation areas, for example, recognizing where there is a tidal wetland generally in the locality,

Once you go to proposed development, you have to have a site-specific delineation to ensure the extent and bounds of any RPA.

And that primarily becomes important because RPA includes that, as I mentioned, connected and contiguous non-title.

We do require what's known as a water quality impact assessment, which has to look at the effect of the runoff and water quality from the change in the buffer, particularly based on the impervious size of the amount of land disturbance, and then address or incorporate mitigation

and then really the 100 foot buffer should be retained and reestablished throughout the localities.

What is permitted within those RPA?

So new or expanded water dependent uses.

So that would include docks and piers, things that have to, by their nature, have a connection from land and water, but not non-water dependent components like parking, for example, redevelopment of existing structures.

So if you had a footprint of a structure that had become dilapidated,

and you wanted to redevelop it into something else, we do allow for that so long as there's no net impervious increase in cover and no further enrichment.

Primary structures and utilities on pre-Bay Act lots, roads and driveways, regional flood control and stormwater management facilities.

We do exempt some activities that of course would occur within the Bay, within the RPA area as well, such as passive recreation facility, like boardwalks and access pass.

You often see those along the waterways

and the James and otherwise historical preservation and archeological activities, water wells, railroads, public roads and public utilities.

So typically there's a different level of review for certain modifications or development where we do have allowances for permanent buffer modifications like site lines and vistas, private access paths, woodlot management, for example, addressing invasive species and shoreline erosion control projects.

We do allow for that with certain conditions

for example, like minimizing the extent of vegetation removed as opposed to pruning for sight lines, requirements for VMR, sea approval for shoreline erosion control projects.

Those are permitted, are reviewed and do have their own conditions as well.

One of the big pieces of the components when you do have modifications or development within the RPA

As I mentioned, since the goal is to have a fully vegetated RPA to address that runoff is to require and include mitigation for land disturbance.

We have tables for both reestablishing a buffer or where you have significant land disturbance, as well as if you're mitigating for some tree removal, for example, with one of those buffer modification projects that primarily focuses on for every 400 square feet of land disturbance,

There's one canopy, two understory, and three small shrubs that should be installed.

So to speak to some more of the, now with that backdrop, the questions that came in specifically, I think for us to talk a little bit about is there is a specific provision.

You see it there in the Virginia State statute that allows for any local government, although not part of Tidewater Virginia, may employ the criteria developed pursuant to, so that would be the,

Criteria that I spoke of established by the State Water Control Board and the Bay Act regulations to protect water quality of the state waters and other comprehensive plan zoning and subdivision ordinance consistent with, so therefore within the same parameters and bounds as I spoke to before of the Bay Act.

So localities are empowered to be able to do that.

We do not currently have any localities that have done so.

We have localities that have adopted some components.

Albemarle County, for example, at one time had additional components.

Louisa County had explored that and I believe adopted some additional components, but no one has wholesale adopted provisions that completely mirror the Bay Act in any locality that is not one of the 84.

Anytime a locality has explored this option, wanting to know more

or engage us on what that would look like or their options were.

We have provided technical assistance consistent with what we provide for the other 84.

So we would provide that guidance and assistance and ordinance reviews, plan reviews, site plans, RPA delineations and so forth.

We don't limit ourselves just to the 84.

And if there was a direct spade connection, there might be the opportunity

Again, although it's limited for maybe potential funding from EPA to assist as well.

One of the considerations that often localities take into account is whether they want to adopt in whole or part some provisions.

For example, like the performance criteria and limitations around those water bodies or features versus some of the other more land use, land planning components that were new at the time of the program that may be very different now, like the comprehensive plan.

but again it can be all or none of the above if localities want to pursuant to that statute.

We would provide assistance for technical assistance.

We would not conduct a compliance review of that program because they're not by statute mandated to have the program but we would certainly provide guidance assistance and we as well offer trainings.

We do twice a year trainings for example

or have the last two years on resource protection area delineations, all of that would be available for them as well.

So I'm going to stop there.

I think I maybe even took a little more than our time, but happy to take any questions or additional questions that folks might have about the program or options and so forth.

No need to raise your hand.

Thank you very much.

This is very helpful.

So one question is about exemptions.

And this may be outside your scope, in which case, just tell me.

But in Albemarle, we don't have, in our rural area, which is 95% of our geography, it's all zones of rural area.

So it all could be farmed.

But am I correct in interpreting that if you're not an active farm in production, you're not exempt from the buffer type requirements?

Thank you.

There's a couple of parts that come into that.

We work with our counterparts to identify those sites that actually are agricultural or civil cultural through DCR or DOF because they have their own criteria.

There's also connections to the actual tax status or parcel identification by the locality.

So the locality would have to recognize that as agricultural land.

If it was clear-cutted without a connected agricultural activity, that's when we would engage with the locality and DCR who then works with the districts to identify if it's a bona fide, because there's other, our program isn't the only thing that of course comes into play if you're talking about bona fide agricultural activity, because there's a lot of other components that the locality

DCR would be interested in relative to that.

But I think the primary point there is there is some criteria around identification of those parcels consistent with the localities approach and definitions.

And we do work with both DCR and DOF.

Because it is a locality implemented program, it actually is up to the locality to decide ultimately if the parcel does qualify for

the exemption or not.

And even if you do have an agricultural parcel or a silvicultural parcel with buffer, there are requirements.

DOF will go out, they'll say that the parcel is not meeting those practices.

So they will, the mandate between the forestry and the locality becomes either implement the practices

25, 830, excuse me, 130.

There's general performance criteria sections.

Again, that's 9VAC, 25, 830.

That's the Bay act regulations.

130 is the general criteria.

Okay.

As my concern, as, as our County staff has been doing great yeoman's work, trying to develop a draft for it's called

Riparian Buffer Performance Standards.

I haven't mastered the acronym yet.

I just want to make sure that we're not just automatically excluding 95% of the county from the buffer.

So I think you've given me good guidance on the right questions to ask at our work session.

And certainly, even if it's not completely designated, I mean, certainly, and we have, I think, had conversations with localities before, if there is any ordinance attempt or program attempt with drafting, we are happy to look at that.

and provide feedback.

So.

Thank you.

Any other questions I can answer?

So, Isabella, I will share this over for reference for you all.

Also,

including that email link to the Bay Act and the regulations so that the citations and those elements I spoke to if you're curious you can look at that language directly from the statute of the regulation as well as our website which has in addition to the regs and statute our guidance where we have guidance on things like the riparian buffer manual which speaks to those buffer modifications as well as vegetation establishment, permitted use development,

and so forth if anyone really wants to dive deep into all the tools.

There's also a Bay Act 101 training on our website.

So if you want to dive a little deeper, we do have a recorded webinar that we did so that you can watch.

It's about an hour that goes a little bit more in depth for the program.

Sorry, I just have one

I saw in your materials, you said that a permit had to be presented before disturbance could take place, even if it was permitted, right?

Yes, they could be identified as a violation by the locality.

We require, so under the Bay Act framework, there was reference to both, for example, a wetlands project.

You need to have evidence of that wetlands permits as a prior to approval, right?

And because if you're talking about impacting the feature, like I said, where it's other jurisdictional, then yes, the localities would want to see that VMRC, if it's a shoreline project is okay, right?

That they're going to let you do what you want at the shoreline before approving it under the Bay Act.

And then there is that separate

So you'll go and get your JPA and provide that submission to the core and or the VWP that'll have conditions.

And then the project will be reviewed somewhat concurrently, but then the Bay act component based upon any conditions of that wetland permit as well.

So that those are accounted.

Yes, going back to what Mr., is that all right, Ann?

Yes, please.

Go ahead.

Going back to what Mr. Murray said, if there was a violation of something that was already permitted or allowed, but then the permit didn't come through yet, that would be, that would not,

mean that there wouldn't be progress on the development?

So I guess maybe the better way to speak.

So the statute does provide for that locality.

It does provide for the localities to adopt enforcement and penalty language.

So E&S and Soarwater, I believe, have stop work authority.

The Bay Act does not have stop work authority separately.

And with regards to the handling of violations and enforcement, that would again be up to the locality.

Sorry, I think they're getting some feedback there.

I think it might be Mr. Morris who's in

And then I think we'll get to you.

You had a question, Mr. Morris.

But yeah, so there is provisions allowing for the locality to take enforcement for violations to assess the penalty.

And then that individual enforcement is up to the locality.

Oftentimes, we'll get referral referred violations.

And so we do share those along with the locality for them to follow up on.

OK, but you have no enforcement.

So we have no direct enforcement authority on a project or a site, correct?

All of our oversight and enforcement is with the locality through a compliance review process.

Thank you.

Yes.

Sorry, Steve.

What was that again and again?

Sorry.

Yeah, Mr. Morris, if you wouldn't mind, apologies, but I could not catch your question because of the feedback.

Apologies on that.

But if you have a question, certainly drop it in the chat.

Happy to answer that.

In the meantime, I did have one.

I wanted to just say thank you so much for joining us.

This was highly requested by the commission.

So we really appreciate you sharing your time.

So it's not in a clearinghouse.

I mean, we do have obviously the ordinances and plans from the 84 adopted.

I believe we have some historical information around localities who had evaluated this.

Some of you may recall, and I believe at this point it might've been

Ten years ago, there was a body put together to look at expanding the Bay Act by the prior administration.

And I believe there were some components of information pulled together there.

But if you want to see example language, we actually have on our website a model ordinance that kind of lays out if a locality wanted to adopt the Bay Act, including our new requirements around resiliency,

and mature trees and trees preservation, what that language would look like.

And that's probably like a good starting point.

It doesn't have the language per se with the comprehensive plan, because that's very specific.

But the comprehensive plan, we do have a checklist available of the components under the Bay Act that's really looking at water quality, pollution sources, areas of concern for water quality, like where you have shoreline erosion, implementation and planning activities.

are relative to that.

I didn't see your question yet, Mr. Morris, but if anybody else has a question.

And certainly if you all think of anything else after today, please don't hesitate to reach out.

As I said, I'm happy to share those materials over and that may foster some additional questions.

If your locality is considering

provision adoption or inclusion of any kind or want to learn more.

Thank you very much.

This is very helpful and timely as well.

Have a great day.

Excellent.

Very good.

So Maura, please jump in whenever you feel the need as we go through the meeting.

I did just want to mention, Maura, as part of our staff updates, we'll be sharing a little bit of information about the Chesapeake Bay Agreement updates.

And I know you've been involved with that work.

Okay, super.

So then we will wait for her to speak up.

Then we quorum now so we can go back to, okay.

So is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comment under matters from the public?

Could we first start with just, I'll read out attendance and

Yes, please.

Great.

So this meeting of the Rivanna River Basin Commission is being held pursuant to the Code of Virginia subsection C 2.2-3708.3, which allows the public body to hold all virtual public meetings.

This meeting is being held via electronic video and audio means through Microsoft Teams Online and is accessible to the public.

The method for holding this meeting shall not change unless a new meeting notice is provided.

Should the electronic transmission fail, you may reach out to the TJPDC at remmerickattjpdc.org.

Notice has been provided to the public through notice at the TJPDC office's website posting and agenda.

The meeting is held pursuant to the remote electronic participation in all virtual meeting policy as adopted by the Commission on

April 10th, 2025.

The meeting minutes will reflect that the meeting was held by electronic communication means and the type of electronic communication means by which the meeting was held.

A recording of the meeting will be posted at www.rivannariverbasin.org within 10 days of the meeting.

Here.

Bea LaPisto-Kirtley?

here, Lonnie Murray, Lloyd Snook, Michael Payne, Jason Halbert, Timothy Hodge, Tony O'Brien, Reese Peck, Davis Lamb, Francis McGuigan,

Steve Morris.

I'm always having trouble with this audio, but we know you're here, Steve.

Thank you very much for doing all that.

So now we might be ready for matters from the public if there is any.

Now that we are officially begun, then is there anyone present who would like to address the commission?

Who is that?

I'm here.

Thanks Steve.

We got you.

No problem.

Excuse me.

I'm going to say something.

I'm wondering whether or not Steve has any other electronic devices turned on except for his computer.

The feedback's normally caused by the speakers being turned up too loud and too close to the microphone.

That's a good point.

And I also see, Steve, that you have joined the meeting twice.

But that might be causing some issues.

Very good.

All right.

So we now have a chance to approve the meeting minutes for April 10.

25.

Have there any corrections or changes to be made to the minute draft that is in your packet?

And a second as well.

Second.

Thank you.

Very good, Lonnie.

Second.

All in favor of adopting the April 10th

Aye.

No opposed.

We have adopted the minutes.

Thank you.

And we've done that.

We've done that.

So we have done everything there.

We're down to staff updates, I think.

Isabella?

Just approve the agenda.

That's the only other thing.

Oh, that's what we were supposed to do first.

All right.

Well, we're going, but we're pretending it's five minutes after one.

Are there any changes to the agenda which we need to note before approval?

And a second.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

All righty.

Bella going forward because I keep tripping over this or the future chair may please separate out approval of agenda and meeting minutes in separate blocks and then maybe I'll be able to pay attention better.

Thank you so much.

All right, now I think we're ready to go down to staff updates and take it away.

So I wanted to bring to your attention the current public comment period regarding the proposed update to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Local government leaders are crucial partners in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the program partnership is revising this agreement, which is a roadmap to protect the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and it's critical

It's a critical time now to help shape the work and the future of this work.

So now through September 1st, the partnership is accepting public feedback on those proposed changes and input from local government leaders like yourself is vital to ensure that the updated goals and strategies reflect real world needs and on the ground priorities.

I'll send this in the chat, but you can submit comments on the draft revised agreement via email to comments at Chesapeake Bay dot net.

It's a short 19-page document and I encourage you to review the draft agreement and share your thoughts.

You can also review the fact sheet in the meeting packet that is tailored specifically for local government leaders and view the webinar recordings that are hosted by the Local Government Advisory Committee and Local Leadership Work Group to learn more about the specifics of the updated goals and what the changes mean for local governments.

Just a little bit of background on the Bay Agreement.

The original Chesapeake Bay Agreement was a simple one page pledge that was signed in 1983.

And it recognized that a cooperative approach between the Bay States from New York to Virginia was necessary to address the pollution problems.

And then it was updated again in 87 to set the first numeric goals towards that pollution reduction.

And then

That's where it started to aim in reducing the nitrogen and phosphorus amounts entering the Bay by 40% by 2000.

And then after not reaching the goals, it was updated again in 2000 and again in 2014 to further outline the strategy for pollution reduction and other indicators.

And then the 2014 agreement proposed to meet all of those milestones by December of 2025.

this year, which is not on track.

So this has led to an updated agreement and some shifting of those goals and milestones.

The agreement's original 10 goals were simplified into four broader ones, which include thriving habitat and wildlife, clean water, healthy landscapes, and engaged communities.

Just after a quick review and attending some of the webinars, some things that stuck out to me was that

Climate change as language was removed and swapped with changing environmental conditions.

Invasive species aren't addressed and they haven't really been addressed in previous years, at least the land ones that are occurring in our region.

And I just wanted to kind of bring this to your attention and hear from you all if there were any regional or local concerns that you would like to share.

At this time related to the agreement, we'll probably be sharing feedback from the perspective of the TJPDC.

Excellent.

Thank you.

I have reading the document on the train to Philadelphia.

It was incredibly high level and there was very little that one could comment on, which was frustrating from my perspective, but I have read some other components from nonprofits, et cetera,

The scaling back of the milestones is very damaging.

To go from 85,000 acres of wetland preserved as a goal to 3,000 is completely going the wrong direction.

And also the miles of buffering is just a dramatic, oh, we're not doing so well, we're just going to give up, basically.

And that seems to be the attitude that the people who are working on this right now seem to have.

So I hope that there will be lots of pushback

on all of those diminutions of the effort in addition to the one that you mentioned as well, because I'm hearing a lot from many different directions, but we all need to weigh in.

And I think there's a simpler email that you're gonna provide that will, for comment as opposed to going through the public, that very cumbersome report thing where you have to have the document number and all that other ridiculousness.

Definitely.

And please share any feedback that you all have directly to me, because as I mentioned, we'll be providing comments.

So happy to filter that through.

Alrighty.

I would just say that one thing I've watched over the years with this is that we've gradually given up on addressing where

Originally, there were tougher goals for addressing sediment and stormwater from urban areas, and a lot of those continue to be scaled back and more and more pressure has been put on agriculture.

I'm okay with tougher standards for agriculture, but I really do think that we need to stop pretending that we can't do more in cities as well, especially now in Virginia that we have urban BMPs that we could be using.

We just

Thanks for your comments.

Correct.

It's so frustrating to see that some of the common sense features of stormwater management that honestly don't even cost anymore, they just require people to do stuff different, they're still not standard.

Things like making your parking island so they can hold the stormwater.

Alrighty, well, please share any additional comments you have with me.

Oh, thank you.

I just reiterate that, yes, please send your comments.

That's the only way that any local perspective or regional perspective can get into the agreement.

And it's not finalized yet.

It's still draft form.

That's what the administration has asked us to reiterate.

That's, you know, the form it's in now is still a draft.

That's all I'll probably add, but happy to answer specific questions too about the process.

Alrighty, I'll move on to the rest of the staff updates.

This is regarding the TJPDC's IIJA funding that was for implementation of best management practices in 2025.

We were awarded about $180,000 to support two programs and there were some delays in finalizing the contract just due to some uncertainties.

But our contract was finalized this summer and after making some minor changes to our septic assistance program materials, we are excited to be launching the program next week to the public and with our partners at the local housing foundations.

So just as a quick overview of the program, this is a region-wide program supporting low-income homeowners at 80% or less of the area median income.

to fund septic system pump outs, repairs, replacements, and sewer connections.

165,000 of the IIJA funding goes towards this program, and because of the delays, the program has been extended into March of 2026, giving us a little bit more time to spend down the funds.

The projected impact is

26 septic pump outs, six repair projects, two replacements, one alternative system design, but that can be adjusted based on the actual applicants and homeowner needs.

We are partnering with our local housing foundations to take in applications from homeowners as well as to promote the program to those that they're working with.

And then some of you I'm sure are familiar with the soil and water conservation districts funding available in certain watersheds.

with implementation plans to support similar projects.

And we have set up a formal agreement with the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water to basically homeowners will go to their programs first, get covered what they can 50 to 80%.

And then if they qualify for our programs can come over to us to get the additional 50 to 20% covered of the cost of those septic projects.

So we're able to kind of

just make those funds go a little bit further and make sure it's being utilized by both programs.

And then the results are really to reduce the water pollution that comes from these failing septic systems.

And you can learn more on our website there.

And as I mentioned, this is really about pollution reduction as funded by DEQ.

Septic systems are estimated to release 7.8 million pounds of nitrogen a year.

and they're a large portion of the household pollution in our urban and suburban areas of the Bay.

And many of these systems are reaching the end of their usable lifespan.

There's not a lot of information about the best maintenance practices that's widely understood.

And these are all private, many of them are private wells that aren't being regularly tested for water quality.

and these repairs we know can be very costly for low-income homeowners when they're notified of being out of compliance.

So this will help to reduce pollution in groundwater and surface water that can lead to illness and disease and sometimes make well water unsafe to consume.

So looking forward to launching that.

And then the other portion of our IIJ work is our rain barrel workshop program, which we were able to move forward with

just due to the lower administrative cost of this program.

So last year we held six workshops across the region, and this year we were able to expand to eight, reaching all jurisdictions.

And this offers valuable community benefits by promoting water conservation, reducing stormwater runoff at the household level, and residents take an active role in learning about their sustainable practices

We have lots of partners that are able to join us and provide information about local grants and other opportunities for conservation like VCAP with the Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

And there's really been a great community response.

We've been able to partner with local businesses for each and every one to host this complimentary.

and we're able to share resources with the public at these events.

So we are on track this year to distribute over a hundred rain barrels to the public.

Just a small update on the Rivanna River story map.

Some of you had the pleasure of meeting May Ellen Megginson at the first RRBC meeting of the year, who she was a summer intern at the TJPDC supporting

our environmental planning.

And part of her work was supporting the development of a Rivanna River story map that focuses on the history of underrepresented communities and their relationship with the river as well as water quality.

And she worked with local historical foundations and water quality experts to inform and provide feedback on the product.

And it's been shared with our regional libraries back to the historical foundations

and a QR code will be posted on kiosks in the watershed.

So I shared the link in the chat if you were interested in taking a look and feel free to provide us with any feedback that you may have.

All right, moving on to my last update, which is our annual conference.

Just a little over a month away, we will be discussing critical topics

of data centers, water supply planning, local flood and drought records, and our water resilience.

This will be held at the center at Belvedere in Auditorium A on Wednesday, September 24th from 9.30 to 2.30.

The link should also be shared in the chat, but I'll make sure that it is.

Right now we have 37 people registered to attend, and we'll have breakfast and lunch provided

with ample opportunities for networking.

Our marketing schedule is promotional materials.

We've already had about four go out to our local leaders, partners, and those that have attended last conferences.

And then we'll have four more going out to release the final agenda and remind people to register.

Our Facebook is active with additional information.

Press release will be going out at the beginning of September.

And I shared a little promotional sentence or two in the chat for you all.

So there's plenty of parking out front.

available here.

You'll walk right into a nice open atrium and turn right to auditorium A.

We've got nice big windows in the room overlooking a stream here.

And during our networking breaks, the event staff have allowed us to access the Greene, which has a really pretty native garden, an additional garden area.

So it should be lovely.

and then just a high level look at the agenda.

We'll have refreshments available as people start to check in and settle in and our chair will welcome us.

We'll have a presentation from the Virginia Association of Counties, DEQ, Rivanna, Sewer and Water Authority, David Hirschman,

And I just wanted to share another document with you all.

So he's the director of local government policy with the Virginia Association of Counties and has done a lot of environmental work throughout his career.

Hannah Summers is the water supply planning and analysis program manager at DEQ's office that's leading a lot of the charge for the regional water supply plans.

We'll have Bethany Houchins with Rivanna's Water and Sewer

joining us to share that local perspective on our water supply planning.

David Hirschman reached out to share some information about Albemarle and Charlottesville's flood record and record from 1993 to 2004.

He was the water resources manager in Albemarle and then the director of land use with PEC.

So we're really looking forward to our lineup.

and this is just a little bit more about what they will be sharing during their presentations.

And then we got a quick overview of this at the last executive committee meeting, but just to share with everyone, it was $1,080 to rent the auditorium at the center.

We're ordering all compostable supplies

to stay consistent with our mission.

Wegmans will be providing a breakfast with some mixed fruit trays and coffee to welcome people in.

And then Fabio's was highly recommended and will have options for people with all kinds of eating restrictions and can adjust the total amount of servings based on how many people sign up

And then depending on how many people register, we have a capacity of 70.

This is just kind of the offset of the price from ticket sales to get us to our total.

So I believe that is all I have to share about the conference there.

Okay, starting again, because I just unmuted myself.

Is the health department already in your list of partners for the SEPTA program?

Because they often will be the ones who find that there is a failed system and sometimes their money is used up.

So I want to make sure that they are part of the loop as far as that information sharing for your grant.

But I'm really grateful that you have this grant to work on and

Is that ready for announcement at the meeting tomorrow, the board meeting tomorrow?

Yeah, it would be great if you could just wait.

We're presenting next Wednesday to the Housing Foundation to finalize all the details.

Very good.

OK, so we'll hit it on the 4th of September then.

That'll be perfect.

Thank you very much.

All right, let's see.

So roundtables, why don't you call on

Whomever is ready to present and I won't cold call people.

Yeah, each commissioner is invited to share updates related to the river, the watershed from their jurisdiction.

Also, if there's any items for the next meeting, any presentation that you'd like to hear, I'd love to hear your feedback on that now.

I thought it was staff updates.

So anyway, then we'll throw it out, please.

Let me get rid of my notes here so we can see people.

Who wants to go first on the updates?

Be brave, everybody.

Let me just make a comment that there's a lot of excitement at TJ over the fact that we're entering this cooperative agreement with this group with respect to the septic.

Right.

Excuse me.

We've had a lot of people

and low income people who not only couldn't afford 100% of the cost of some kind of an upgrade or repair, but who couldn't afford the 20%, even if we were going to fund the 80%.

Consequently, the project just didn't go.

And all of the problems with the failed septic field and failed septic system followed along.

So this opportunity to

Combine funding to get 100% for those people will make a difference to them.

It will also make a big difference in the environmental situation because we probably can stop a lot of leaking.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

Very good point.

It's terrible for people downstream and downhill when there's a system that fails.

And it's why people say, well, why don't we have smaller lots in the rural area for housing?

It's because you have to have a well and a septic on each lot.

And it's not possible to do safely in fewer than two acres.

And it should be really far bigger than that.

But anyway, to be safe.

I'll jump in regarding the septic system.

Have we thought about, and I don't know if we have the ability,

It's come up before in our board meetings that those people, and maybe not the ones who were just talked about who really can't afford the 20%, but others who can afford something that there's some kind of a payback agreement when the house is sold.

So we, you know, I mean, renters, that's something else, but if someone owns a home and they eventually sell, and that could be, you know,

God knows when, but then the amount that we paid out, not more necessarily, but the amount we paid out gets paid back in so that we can use it for other families.

That could be something that maybe it's not even possible, but it's just for our organization here.

I don't know.

That's an interesting thought.

I want to ask Laura almost.

I apologize.

I stepped away for a second and then I heard my name.

I'm so sorry about other other PDCs, septic programs.

What was the question?

Go ahead.

Go ahead, Bea.

No, no.

Okay.

Sorry.

Whether or not with some of these programs, and it may not be for everyone, but for some of these programs that when the house is sold, there's a way for RRBC to recoup those monies to be able to use for other, you know, it replenishes itself to be able to use for other projects.

And I realize that could be years and years down the road, but

That's interesting.

It's not something I've seen come up related to septic programs, but I do know the Virginia Conservation Assistance Program, which is different, you know, policies that they have.

But they do have, if a new homeowner does not agree to the maintenance conditions that the previous homeowner installed under, they would have to repay that prorated amount back to

who would be the Soil and Water Conservation District.

So that would be kind of dependent on an agreement between the new and the old homeowners.

So, Sabir, are you thinking about something sort of along the lines of LEAP, but, you know, would include things like SEPTAIC because that's an interesting idea.

I mean, it really, it takes, because we don't know how,

Funding that's going to be available in the future.

In fact, it's looking really grim, very grim.

And this could continue for what, three and a half more years or it could continue beyond that.

We don't know.

But I think this program is something that is so important to all of us.

I mean, I think it's really vital in the rural area because we're doing it in the urban area, but in the rural area to make sure that the septics get

planned out, replaced, whatever is needed.

It's not clear to me that the people that we serve, most of the people that we serve, especially in the rural area would be economically able

The houses are not going to sell for that much.

I will say that we at TJ, we've had a couple of cases in the not too distant past where it was clear that somebody was asking us for money to fix that up so they could sell.

Yeah, and that's one consideration also.

But if you think about it, Aaron,

Someone who has been in a home for years or decades, that home value goes up.

It definitely goes up.

There might be some kind of way to work that out as long as you depreciate the investment.

A 15-year-old septic system is not

Just is not worth what it was the day you put it in.

Right.

But think about it this way.

It'll cost twice as much like it does now.

Exactly.

and I'm especially intrigued about this better funding for sewer connections where we have older lots in our urban area where people cannot afford the hookup fee, but it's really helpful to them to get on the system.

All right, go ahead, Lonnie.

Sorry, just to keep talking about the septic thing, but you know, one thing I wonder too is, you know, we just had the presentation about localities ability to adopt the Bay Act and the Bay Act, you can require septic pump outs.

And I wonder if some, I didn't think about it till now, it would have been good to ask if we have the ability to require pump outs before a sale or land transfer, cause that'd be extremely useful.

Like, you know, if someone,

was about to sell their home required that.

And if that's not something we can do now, it's certainly something we should consider putting on the legislative agenda because I've heard of a lot of people that have bought a house only to find out that they have horrific septic issues.

And so it'd be a very positive thing we could add.

That was not included in their house to house inspection if they got one and many people

don't because they want to buy the house so desperately that they give up on the inspection, which is dangerous for sure.

Other questions to talk about.

But in an old system, an inspector might, you know, the day after the inspector approves the property, the system can go south.

So I really like that idea, Lonnie, of requiring that when you sell a property,

If it has a septic system, you have to at least pump the tank.

We'll have to ask our realtor friends if that's something that's already done.

It only took 10 years of work to get permission to require that alternative septic systems be listed on the deed because of their high priority to fail.

and their spectacular level of failure when they fail.

So I guess they're better ones now, but I'm really glad that at least people have a chance to be notified what they might be getting themselves in for before they buy something.

That's a $5,000 a year upkeep maintenance charge.

All right, this is wonderful discussion.

Any other questions we need to report on from our round table before I give one?

I don't wanna go but in front of anybody.

Are we ready?

OK, tomorrow's meeting, Amarillo County, at my great joy, is having a work session on the next phase of the riparian buffer protection standards.

And I'll be interested to look at the links which Justin provided, because I'm hopeful that a lot of the language which is in our draft was captured hook, line, and sinker out of the guidance, because I know there were some similar terminology that was used.

So that would be good, because no point reinventing the wheel.

This has a lot of references to going back to what we did before 2014, which I'm thrilled about, and just trying to figure out if we're really making progress.

And I think we are, but I want to make sure before we leave other questions unanswered.

Yeah, some of my pointed questions to DEQ are really aimed at knowing that that ordinance is coming before us, because I think some of those performance criteria

particularly the ones under resource management areas I think would be extraordinarily useful to Albemarle County.

We unfortunately found out in Crozet there's a controversial situation where a developer, well first people didn't acknowledge there was a stream existing at all and people in Crozet had to get everyone to acknowledge the stream existed.

Then after that long battle, the developer came along and buried the stream

got a permit after the fact, after they had already started burying the stream.

And then we were told by the county attorney, we can do nothing about it.

And so that was pretty horrific and pretty really frustrating to the residents of Crozet.

I'm sure Bea, I'm sure you and Ann have heard a lot about that.

And so it's important to me that we find a way when we craft this ordinance to find ways to help close that loophole at least a little bit.

Yeah, tomorrow will be an exciting afternoon, that's for sure.

All right, other thoughts?

Okay, Isabella, did we get to the end of our agenda?

Let me look at my agenda here and see.

And for the next meeting, are there any notes in process?

Well, we have our conferences the next meeting.

Yeah, our next full board meeting will be March 17th, 2026.

Oh, OK. Well, there you go.

I think we're going to be due for our elections, I believe.

OK. We'll update our remote electronic meeting policy, but I don't have a presentation yet.

So there may be something that comes up in the General Assembly, which we will need to discuss.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Our legislators need all the input they can get to, so they're not just relying on lobbyists from one particular side of the conversation.

So important stuff.

Yes, again, me.

You guys are gonna probably throw me off the committee.

Did you say, Isabel, that that was March 26th?

March 17th.

March 17th, okay, thank you.

But the other thing I wanted, and I'm posting this to the entire committee,

along and because I'm also on the tour, CACBB, the tourist bureau and the Rivanna River, James River, those are all so beautiful.

But I do notice that when you're, there's no way to get semi close to the water or anything because of all the foliage and the trees and everything like that.

And I'm just throwing this out and please throw it right back at me to say, no, this is not the way things are done or anything.

but I do notice in other localities where a lot of the foliage frankly is cut back so that the water itself is more visible as it flows along and you're walking along the trails.

Is that something in my way off base, guys?

Well, that certainly is something that happens.

but the science around it suggests that that does cause additional pollution into the river because then you don't have that vegetative barrier that helps trap nutrients and keep them from going into the water.

Now, I do think we should offer, now we do have provisions for property owners, a lot of places have them and I think Albemarle County does too to allow access points.

So where you can,

as opposed to mowing a huge swath and clearing a big patch of river, you can have a smaller area where you can reasonably access the water.

That's certainly one way to do it.

The other thing is too, is I've mentioned to the county that there really, it should be a native vegetative buffer.

And I think the current ordinance, sorry, the ordinance that you will hear reflects this idea that

Native vegetation doesn't necessarily have to be a tree.

Native grasses provide the same benefits as trees do and sometimes are more beneficial.

Good.

That's good information.

Thank you.

I hadn't thought about it that way, but it makes complete sense.

So what about the logs in the tree?

You know, you see these large tree branches and everything in the middle of the river.

Well, those actually provide critical habitat for fish and aquatic.

Yeah, so actually the logs are actually a good thing.

So if you're, you know, if you talk to people who are like, you know, trout fishermen or other people, I mean, you know,

Okay, well, you can tell I'm from an urban setting, so okay, thank you very much.

That's all right.

Yeah, with respect to the type of buffer, whether it's a riparian forest or a grassy area, it's almost going to have to be decided on a case-by-case basis because soil conditions, land use upgrading,

from the buffer.

All of those things can have some effect on it.

Okay.

I like Lonnie's idea about native

native grasses, native plants everywhere, frankly.

And we just updated a couple of years ago, right Ann, we just updated our native plant list.

I'm sharing in the chat now, sorry, the designs and the link to the Rivanna Conservation Alliance is designed for Riverview Park.

because they're doing a full stream bank restoration there.

Lonnie's mention of excess points.

I think the key word is point.

Yeah.

It's not an excess reach.

It's a point.

And you can do them

So that you can see the water.

I'm thinking of some places with high banks on the Rivanna.

Yeah, it's interesting, Aaron, I should send you the text that the county came up with their management guidelines for stream buffers.

It's really interesting.

They have a thing like

If it takes into account the current state and what you can change it to or change it from.

And it's quite detailed and very, very interesting.

But actually, maybe everyone will be interested in seeing what that is.

But I think those management guidelines are something that's been sorely needed to give property owners guidance.

Like you can take your lawn and convert that into native wildflower meadow and that's allowed.

If you have a hardwood forest, you cannot clear the hardwood forest and replace it with a native wildflower meadow.

Lonnie, why don't you share the link with Isabella and she can share that with everybody.

That'll save us all time to find it.

Isabella, does the contents of the chat, does that get emailed out?

Tim, I thought you had your hand.

We're looking in.

The only thing I have is Fluvanna County is going to do a sweep of the Rivanna River for tires in the coming weeks.

We've done it previously where we went through with floats and stuff, so that's coming up.

And that should make an improvement.

Yeah, that's great.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

OK, how are we doing here?

I just wanted to ask Tim if that's a volunteer based event.

It is.

Mike Sheridan, one of our supervisors, is heading that up.

That'd be great.

All right, Bella, have we covered it?

We've covered it.

I think we've had another fantastic meeting.

Thank you, everyone.

So engaged, so present.

I was really pleased with all the information we learned from

DEQ, and it's good to know that we have friends higher up the chain.

I was glad that Justin mentioned it, so I didn't have to call it out, but I will say it again anyway, is that from Michael Roband, who's the head of DEQ, when I complained to him about their permit getting in the way of a work that had gone on in the academy for a long time, and he said, oh, hold the phone right now.

Nothing DEQ does supersedes what localities do.

So if you don't want to give a permit, don't give a permit just because the county, the DEQ gave one.

And that was a complete change of culture from what I have been told since the 1980s.

So it's going to take a while to turn that ship, but we all need to recognize that the localities are in the driver's seat on this.

We certainly, there are things that they will not permit, but if just because they permit it does not mean the county has to.

And we all need to grab onto our authority here and make it stick.

So thank you, everybody, for all of your input.

And let's all keep giving Isabella all her support, our support.

A lot of friends to the conference in September.

It should be hot.

Good discussion.

They're looking forward to it.

I know Joe is looking forward to it.

I saw him last week.