Transcript Salmon Falls Collaborative October 27 Workshop

Salmon Falls
Collaborative
October 27 Workshop
Paul Susca, NH DES
Andy Tolman, ME CDC
SFWC Project Area
Salmon Falls River Watershed
 Approx. 250 square mile coastal
watershed
 Includes over a dozen towns in
ME and NH
 Surface water and multiple
groundwater public water
systems within watershed
 Increasing development
pressures and degraded water
quality, but little watershed-wide
focus to date
SFWC Project Overview: the Plan




One-day workshop focused on defining watershed-wide
approaches and priorities for source water projection
Blueprint for action
Post-workshop priority action implementation
Timeline (18-21 months)



Workshop in Fall 2010
9 months lead time for workshop planning
6-12 months to implement low-cost, high priority actions
after workshop
Project Partners





Project lead: PREP
Core planning team: MECDC, NHDES, EPA Region 1,
City of Somersworth, PREP
SWC
Multiple project partners/supporters
Workshop participants
Support We Requested from SWC


Financial Support ($5K): venue, facilitator, postworkshop implementation project
SWC Member Support: encourage local
members/affiliates participation


Esp. GSRWA, MRWA, NHWWA
Marketing for Change assistance
Liaison to SWC
 Assist project planning team
 Post-workshop communication assistance

Project Transferability

Watershed-wide approach involving many partners
Local-regional-state partners
 Bi-state collaboration
 Integrating source water protection with watershed
planning and land conservation efforts
 New partnership opportunity: 28 coastal watershed
programs across the country are part of the USEPA
National Estuary Program

Workshop Approach

We share
Values
 Concerns
 Common goals
 Current work




Identify actions that we can take
Set short-term priorities
Consider long-term strategies to keep our
drinking water safe
Values
Concerns

What we’ve already lost


Water pollution and dams
The future – what we stand to lose
Conversion of forests to developed land
 Spread of “impervious area”

Increased pollution
 Increased water treatment costs
 Streams drying up?

(impairment maps)
Indicators of the workshop’s success

75 participants with diverse



Affiliation
Geography
Expertise
Affiliation
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
28%
17%
17%
13%
8%
7%
6%
4%
1%
ra
lg
ov
St
er
at
nm
M
eg
en
un
ov
t
i ci
e
rn
pa
m
l/c
en
ou
t
Co
n
U
ty
m
ni
m
go
ve
un
rs
v’t
ity
ity
.
/n
/c
ol
on
le
pr
ge
Co ofit
gr
nc
ou
er
Bu
ne
p
si n
d
ci t
es
ize
s/
n
co
ns
ul
Ele
ta
ct
ed nt
of
fic
ia
l
Ot
he
r
2.
Federal government
State government
Municipal/county gov’t.
University/college
Community/nonprofit group
Concerned citizen
Business /consultant
Elected official
Other
Fe
de
1.
Field of Expertise
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
19%
16%
14%
10%
7%
6%
3%
3%
r
3.
23%
Ot
he
2.
Regulatory
Planning/Land Use
Engineering/Public
Works
Stewardship
Education
Science/Water Research
Drinking Water
Land Conservation
Other
Re
Pl
gu
an
En
la
ni
gi
to
ng
ne
ry
/L
er
an
in
g/
d
Us
Pu
e
bl
ic
W
or
St
ks
ew
ar
ds
Sc
hi
ien
p
Ed
ce
uc
/W
at
at
io
er
n
Re
s
e
Dr
ar
in
ch
kin
La
g
nd
W
at
Co
er
ns
er
va
tio
n
1.
Indicators of the workshop’s success

75 participants with diverse




Affiliation
Geography
Expertise
Engaged
)
M
y
w
o
r
k
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
Work Contributes to Protection of Water
3%
0%
3%
26%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
68%
Strongly Disagree
Primary Role in protecting water
23 % (16 participants) drinking water
19% (13 participants) water education and outreach
16% (11 participants) water science and research
14% (10 participants) planning and land use
10% (7 participants) land conservation
7% (5 participants) engineering and public works
6% (4 participants) regulatory arena
3% (2 participants) citizen or business stewardship of water
3% (2 participants) other
Top successful elements of the event





Number, diversity, and appropriateness of participants
Constructive tone; willingness of participants to engage
Christine Feurt’s role in designing the workshop
Local case studies (Acton-Wakefield, Somersworth) and
empowering speakers (NEMO) gave the workshop a
positive, can-do tone. More time spent on potential
solutions than on describing problems.
Use of keypad polling, keeping agenda on track,
moving forward, allowing everyone to be heard without
bogging down the discussion
Preliminary Results
Working Across Borders in
the Salmon Falls Watershed
Raw data from keypad polling
October 27, 2010
Priorities - Information
5.
6.
7.
8.
13%
13%
10%
5%
3%
3%
ot
Sin
en
t
gl
e M ial
Co
E&
nt
am
NH
in
at
Re
W
i..
p
at
o
r
er
t&
Qu
M
ali
ap
ty
s
S
am
Hi
st
pl
in
LID oric
g
S
M
am
od
pl
el
in
Or
g
di
na
nc
W
e
at
E
e
co
rA
Li s
no
to
ud
m
fC
it
i
c
on
A
na
ta
ct
ly
sis
fro
m
To
da
y
4.
25%
or
yP
3.
28%
en
t
2.
Inventory Potential
Contamination Sources
Single ME & NH Report &
Maps
Water Quality Sampling
Historic Sampling
LID Model Ordinance
Water Audit
Economic Analysis
List of Contact from Today
In
v
1.
Priorities – Land Conservation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Conservation Planning Focus
Areas
Municipal Funding for Land
Conservation
Link to Land Conservation
Network
Mitigation Ready Projects
Fund Land Conservation w/ land
use change $
Fund Land Conservation for
Drinking Water Protection w/
Impact Fees
Resource for Funding
Opportunities
24%
22%
19%
17%
7%
7%
5%
Cons
ervati
on
Plann
ing
Focus
Areas
Muni Link
cipal to
Fundi Land
ng for Conse
Land rvatio
Conse n
rvatio Netw
n
ork
Mitig
ation
Read
y
Proje
cts
Fund Fund Reso
Land Land urce
Conse Conse for
rvatio rvatio Fundi
n w/ n for ng
land Drinki Oppo
use
ng rtunit
chang Wate ies
e$
r
Conservation Priorities – Runoff Poll
How to Fund Land Conservation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Conservation Planning Focus
Areas
Municipal Funding for Land
Conservation
Link to Land Conservation
Network
Mitigation Ready Projects
Fund Land Conservation w/ land
use change $
Fund Land Conservation for
Drinking Water Protection w/
Impact Fees
Resource for Funding
Opportunities
45%
34%
19%
0%
Cons
ervati
on
Plann
ing
Focus
Areas
2%
Muni Link
cipal to
Fundi Land
ng for Conse
Land rvatio
Conse n
rvatio Netw
n
ork
0%
Mitig
ation
Read
y
Proje
cts
0%
Fund Fund Reso
Land Land urce
Conse Conse for
rvatio rvatio Fundi
n w/ n for ng
land Drinki Oppo
use
ng rtunit
chang Wate ies
e$
r
Priorities - Planning
7.
10%
7%
at
er
lR
So
es
W
at
ou urce
er
r
. ..
Re ce I
Id
nv
e n sou
en
rc
t if
y & e C tory
ha
De
pt
fin
er
. ..
e
E
Ga
Bu
r
o
p
An ild-o sio.
..
al
ut
St
y
A
s
or
is
na
m
of
ly
w
O
at
r d s is
er
Ut inan
ili
ce
ty
Fe s
as
ib
...
6.
10%
ur
a
5.
17%
15%
ng
W
4.
19%
Na
t
3.
22%
ki
2.
Drinking Water Source
Protection Plans
Natural Resource
Inventory
Water Resource Chapter in
Municipal Conservation
Plans
Identify & Define Erosion
Hazard Area
Build-out Analysis
Gap Analysis of
Ordinances
Stormwater Utility
Feasibility Study
Dr
in
1.
Priorities - Regulation
6.
7.
19%
14%
10%
3%
10%
2%
rv
at
Co
Sh
io
ns
or
n
er
e
..
l
v
a
Lo
at
nd .
io
w
Z
n
Im
Fo oni
pa
n
cu
ct
Lo
sA g
D
ca
re
ev
l
.
el
Lo Stor
op ..
ca
m
m
w
lD
en
a
.
te
r
i
n
‘H
r M ..
igh kin
an
Qu g W
...
at
al
e
ity
rP
W
r..
at
.
er
’D
es
...
5.
Co
ns
e
4.
re
d
3.
41%
qu
i
2.
Required Conservation Subdivision
Shoreland Zoning
Conservation Focus Area Overlay
District
Low Impact Development
Ordinance
Local Stormwater Management
Regulation
Local Drinking Water Protection
Ordinance
‘High Quality Water’ Designation –
CWA
Re
1.
Priorities - Education
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
26%
17%
14%
14%
7%
5%
5%
7%
5%
ra
ry
’
ti
M of E
lec
ed
Tr
ia
t
ai
Ou ron
ni
ic
ng
tr
M
UN
ea
fo
ap
c
r
Ro
H
h
M
To s
St
ad
un
o
ol
rm
ici
Sa
pa box
nd
w
at
lO
/S
e
al
t T r Ce ffi ci
al
nt
LID rai
s
er
n
in
De
To
g
m
ur
fo
o
En ns t r M
u
ra
ga
tio ni..
ge
.
n
Ad You
Pr
o
vo
t
je
ca h &
c
cy
Fa t
Sc
fo
m
ho
il
rB
ol
M ies
Ba
P/
Le
se
gi
d
s
Pr
og .
ra
m
s
3.
‘Li
b
2.
‘Library’ of Electronic Maps
Multi Media Outreach Toolbox
Training for Municipal Officials
UNH Stormwater Center Tour
Road Sand/Salt Training for
Municipal Staff
LID Demonstration Project
Engage Youth & Families
Advocacy for BMP/Legis.
School Based Programs
M
ul
1.
What Made This Workshop Different



Focused on the resource (watershed) rather than
statewide
Intense collaborative effort planning the
workshop; no dominant leader
Process employed in workshop
Not primarily data-driven
 Designed around social-sciences model of
“collaborative learning for ecosystem management”
brought to the project by Chris Feurt.

Role of Source Water Collaborative
in Workshop’s Success
Concept was dormant for years – cross-border
barriers to watershed thinking
 EoI process was catalyst; to get project off the
ground.
 Getting the right people on the planning team and
participating in the workshop.
 SWC covered cost of meeting facility

Next Steps

Planning team meets 11/16
LID education & outreach?
 Funding guide?
 Road show?



PREP applying for grant from NHDES
Communication plan – maintain momentum

Need to start ASAP – help from Salter>Mitchell?