Approved June 20, 2023

A hybrid Meeting held in-person at the Park Authority Board Room - Suite 941 of the Herrity Building - and virtually via Microsoft Teams                                                                                                              

Ms. Bordas called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Those present included:

• Adria Bordas, Director & Committee Chair, NVSWCD
• Jerry Peters, Director, NVSWCD
• Chris Koerner, Director, NVSWCD
• John Peterson, Associate Director, NVSWCD
• Scott Baron, NVSWCD
• Meghan Cunha, NVSWCD
• Judy Fraser, NVSWCD
• Don Lacquement, NVSWCD
• Dan Schwartz, NVSWCD
• Willie Woode, NVSWCD
• Jim McGlone, Virginia Department of Forestry
• Shannon Bell, Fairfax County Stormwater Planning

The purpose of the meeting is to review one Soil & Water Quality Conservation Plan, one Conservation Assistance Program (CAP-VCAP) applications, and five CAP-VCAP reimbursements.

MINUTES

A motion (Schwartz-Fraser) to approve the minutes from the March meeting passed unanimously, with the caveat that spelling of Sophia Wood’s last name needs to be fixed.

SOIL & WATER QUALITY CONSERVATION PLANS
Mr. Woode presented one Soil and Water Quality Conservation Plan (SWQCP) for the Committee’s review. The SWQCP was prepared by Mr. Woode and Ms. Hunter-Nickels for the renewal of the Kincheloe property as an A&F District. The property is 350 acres in multiple parcels in Clifton, including 86 acres in fields, a small vineyard, a winery, and two residences. The rest of the property is wooded. All of the property is in the Old Mill Branch Watershed. Two streams run north to south on the property with 1,700 linear feet of RPA.

Hay fields (1-7) are in the southern part of the property on rolling land with some critical slopes. Some of the fields are just mowed and are not in consistent commercial production, but some of the hay is sold to mushroom producers in the Philadelphia area. The fields seem to be low in nutrients, low in pH or both, evidenced by lots of weed pressure. Soil tests back this up and recommend addition of N, P, K and lime to the fields. Lime additions are recommended as 2.25 tons/acre over three years. Given the volume, the plan recommends a split application.

The plan further supplies the applicants with a 5-year fertilizer application chart for the fields. Mr. Woode states that the owners do not like adding fertilizer, but the information is there should they decide to make any additions. The chart gives them a maximum annual amount to add.

Mr. Peterson asks if anything has changed since the last A&F Plan. Mr. Woode says that the soil results have changed, and there is some Autumn olive invasion on parts of the fields. Mr. Woode also says that Trapa seeds were seen on the property, but thought the seeds were Trapa natans, not T. bispinosa. The Kincheloe family is currently treating the ponds for Trapa.

There are no cost-share considerations and the Committee has no other recommendations for the plan.

CAP-VCAP APPLICATIONS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
For review by the committee, Ms. Fraser presented one new application and five reimbursement requests.

New Applications

Wackerbarth Conservation Landscaping – Fairfax, Braddock District, Pohick Creek Watershed

• Small project at a townhouse property right above RPA and floodplain
• Homeowner wants to convert all his landscaping to native plants.
• Did run into small issue with his HOA management; they disapproved of some of his plant choices. Worked out agreement to swap in green and gold and different species of sedge to meet HOA approval.
• There is some erosion at the downspout outlets. The downspouts will flow into the new landscaping.
• A small project, but a good design, a good example to the neighborhood of the benefits of natives, and the owner is very invested in the success of the project. Nearly all the open space of the property will be converted to natives.
• Because of the size, the project didn’t meet VCAP scoring minimums, so it will be funded by CAP.
• Size – 400 sf. Cost $6,488.13; Cost-Share $5,190.50

The details of this project and its low score prompted a discussion about minimum qualifying scores amongst the Committee. Ms. Fraser indicated that minimum scores might be eliminated at the state level, which is the NVSWCD staff suggestion. The original point of project scores was to rank projects when funding was tighter. Lower scored projects would get bumped down in favor of higher scoring projects, but not eliminated. These low-scoring projects would often sit on the waitlist indefinitely, neither funded nor eliminated from consideration. Now that there is more funding, this issue is no longer there. If there are issues with funding lower ranking projects, Ms. Fraser suggest clear rules should be put in the design guidelines so that these types of projects are filtered out before the project is designed and submitted for SWCD consideration.

Reimbursements

Bucher Conservation Landscaping – City of Alexandria, Cameron Run Watershed

• A complete change-over of the small front yard to native landscaping. The project receives runoff from the downspouts and is slightly graded to create a “sponge garden” effect.
• The project was approved in previous fiscal year, so cost-share is capped at the old rate of $3,500
• Size - 1,026 ft²; Cost - $10,500; Cost-share - $3,500.

Miranda Conservation Landscaping – Oakton, Sully District, Difficult Run Watershed

• A large conservation landscaping project in Oakton that uses coir log terraces and rocks to slow and soak runoff from a culvert under the driveway.
• Four coir log terraces were installed across the flow path, edged with boulders and logs to control the pathway of runoff.
• Size – 4,500 ft²; Cost - $12,150; Cost-Share - $7,000
   

Kelly/Williams Impervious Surface Removal with Porous Paving and Conservation Landscaping – Falls Church, Providence District, Cameron Run Watershed

• The homeowners removed part of their driveway and replaced it with a combination of permeable walkways and conservation landscaping.
• One roof downspout spills onto the new permeable walkway.
• Size – 325 ft²; Cost - $10,073.40; Cost-Share - $7,263.51

Kelly/Williams Conservation Landscaping – Falls Church, Providence District, Cameron Run Watershed

• As a separate project, the homeowners also installed conservation landscaping in the rear of their property around their patio in order to soak up runoff before it flows under the fence gate and out to the street in front.
• One downspout that was connected to a buried extension pipe was disconnected and routed to the new conservation landscaping.
• Size – 590 ft²; Cost - $7,884.39; Cost-Share - $6,295.53

Austin Rain Garden – City of Fairfax, Pohick Creek Watershed

• Homeowner installed a small rain garden in the front yard with an unusual curved shape to stay out of the critical root zone of a nearby birch tree.
• A layer of gravel at the inflow of the rain garden disperses the flow and slows the velocity of piped downspout flow.
• Size – 165 ft²; Cost - $10,000; Cost-Share - $7,000
   

After discussion, the Committee agrees to recommend that the reviewed CAP-VCAP application and reimbursements be approved by the NVSWCD Board of Directors at their next meeting.

May 2023 CAP AND VCAP Applications

May 2023 CAP/VCAP Reimbursement Request

CAP-VCAP Program Updates
 

Inspections:
Ms. Cunha and Ms. Fraser inspected 19 CAP-VCAP projects prior to the meeting. The VASWCD mandates that a certain number of VCAP projects be inspected annually. Those state-mandated inspections are finished and all projects passed with some minimal corrective actions, like a small percentage of plant mortality and some invasive pressure. Corrective actions will be noted on each project’s inspection report.

There is one CAP practice that no longer seems to exist. This project was tagged as absent in a previous inspection. This is a continuing challenge for HOA projects where people involved in the initial application and installation may have moved away. Ms. Fraser would like to find some path where the applicants are encouraged to fix the problem, not to feel threatened with enforcement. Mr. Koerner states that we should look for an approach that doesn’t turn applicants off, but also doesn’t make it seem like we won’t enforce the maintenance responsibilities of CAP/VCAP projects at all. Mr. Koerner and Ms. Fraser agree that the ultimate goal is to get the applicant to fix or re-build the project and not to claw back the money.

Ms. Bell recommends sending a reminder email to HOA boards to reinforce knowledge of the project when the board membership changes. Mr. Koerner says we can ask for a picture or two yearly to see how the project is doing. Ms. Fraser says that could even be a screening tool for which projects to inspect. Ms. Bell also states that the county has inspection checklists for permitted BMPs. Those, or a simplified version, could be used for CAP/VCAP inspections.

Ms. Fraser states that it might be useful to have an informational follow-up inspection for new projects one year after installation. This is to remain connected to the applicants and offer maintenance advice while problems remain small. It will also teach staff and applicants what design features work and which don’t. Mr. Koerner says this would be especially useful for some of the unique projects that have been recently installed, like the above ground rain gardens built in 2022.

Ms. Fraser says that she would like to see some changes to the wording of the VCAP Participant Agreement to make it clearer what the maintenance responsibilities of the applicant are. Clarity is lacking for some project types, like conservation landscaping. We can change the CAP participant agreement language ourselves, but changes to the VCAP participant agreement must go through the Steering Committee.

Policy Updates

Ms. Fraser discussed several proposed changes to CAP-VCAP rules and policies

Current rule: No permeable pavement can be cost-shared that is constructed over permeable surfaces.
Proposed rule: Could allow cost-share if the applicant is removing impermeable surface and building a permeable surface elsewhere on current permeable land as a one-for-one (or less) swap.

Current Rule: Maximum reimbursements up to $30,000 are allowed for some practices, like bioretention
Proposed Rule: Put an across-the-board reimbursement cap of $20,000 on all individual projects. Discussion amongst Committee members agrees that this is useful, but some would like to put in language that allows larger reimbursements dependent on special Board approval. This would be reserved for really exceptional projects.

Other Proposed Rule Changes:

• Make the “checklist” application the standard application for all CAP-VCAP applications.
• Require infiltration results as hourly data, not just the final average.
• Practices with underground components must have an inspection or photographs of the underground components before they are buried.

Memorandums of Understanding: Ms. Fraser reports that we have received interest from Falls Church about setting up an MOU to participate in VCAP. This would allow Falls Church residents to participate in the program. NVSWCD would get the technical assistance fee for any approved and installed projects.

The Committee discusses whether we should request some reimbursement for site visits that don’t result in installed projects. This would prevent Fairfax County taxpayers from paying for technical assistance to non-county residents. Committee members ask if this request should be added to the existing VCAP MOUs we have with Fairfax City and Alexandria.

Climate adaptation as goal of CAP: CAP is currently a water quality program. We could add, or ask the County if they would add, climate adaptation as an additional goal. Mr. Peters asks if any of our project types could help with climate resiliency. Ms. Fraser says that plant selection can. Mr. Peters asks if we review plant types for climate suitability. Ms. Fraser says we have not yet. Mr. McGlone says that most of our local natives are in the middle of their range, so there is some wiggle room for warming conditions without having bad outcomes for what is being planted in CAP projects. He does say that he doesn’t recommend things like sugar maple or basswood that are at the southern end of their range here, and he does see southern magnolias at the northern end of their range thriving in Fairfax.

Broaden the program: Ms. Fraser brought up several resource concerns and specialized project types to get the Committee’s thoughts on whether they should be incorporated in the CAP-VCAP programs.

• New Resource Concerns: Should turf and non-native invasive species be considered a resource concern in and of themselves? This would allow conservation landscaping projects for areas where there is no observed erosion, bare soil, or excess runoff. Mr. McGlone says that conversion of turf to trees or shrubs is eligible for Clean Water Grants from DOF as long as project is at least 1/10^th of an acre, so turf conversion is allowable in existing state policy.
• Specialized Projects: Ms. Fraser presented several new types of conservation landscaping projects that have value but do not fit well with the design standards of the CAP-VCAP programs.
  • Woodland plantings under mature trees: Should/can we make different planting standards for these types of planting projects?
  • Permaculture: This would allow edible, non-native plants in with conservation landscaping projects. They would have to be permanent perennials and non-invasive. The Committee would have to approve a list of eligible plants, but right now they are not allowed.
  • Soil amendment as standalone project or as part of conservation landscaping: The Committee discussed whether we should allow soil amendment projects that maintain the land as turf. There was some concern that if we do this while also allowing cost-share for turf conversion (as discussed earlier), we would be sending mixed messages. Ms. Schwartz mentioned that soil amendments that remain turf are an approved stormwater control in the DEQ BMP Clearinghouse, and that NVSWCD’s work in Arlington shows that compacted turf is a significant runoff source.
  • Sponge Gardens: Staff is currently working on template for small sponge gardens with Earth Sangha. A sponge garden is like a simplified rain garden.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Considerations: Ms. Fraser sees potential for delineating DEI projects through alternative means compared to the state’s method which excludes nearly all of Fairfax County. This would potentially give more technical assistance and cost-share to such projects. We could use county CAP funds as means to increase VCAP grants to such projects. Mr. Woode wonders if partnering with Neighborhood and Community Services would be a foot in the door to communities who could benefit, specifically multi-family housing.

Erosion and Sediment Controls on CAP-VCAP Projects: Mr. Fraser noted that there is a general expectation of some E&S controls on CAP-VCAP projects. Some bigger projects are open for extended periods, so it might be good to have more stringent rules and clear expectations on what minimum E&S controls are needed.

ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Bordas adjourned the meeting at 12:40. The next TRC meeting will be June 20^th at 10 A.M.

ADJOURNMENT
The next TRC meeting will be June 20th at 10 A.M.

In-Person Meeting in the NVSWCD Conference Room, Room 913 of the Herrity Building

In Attendance

• Jerry Peters, NVSWCD Chairman
• Monica Billger, NVSWCD Director
• Scott Cameron, NVSWCD Vice-Chairman
• Chris Koerner, NVSWCD Treasurer
• Adria Bordas, NVSWCD Director-Extension
• Willie Woode, Executive Director
• Heather Shackley, Operations Manager
• Debbie Cross, DCR

Call to Order

Mr. Peters called the meeting to order at 8:31 am and noted that an in-person quorum was present. 

Approval of Minutes

Following a motion (Cameron-Billger) the minutes of the April 25, 2023 meeting of the Executive-Operations Committee were approved by voice vote.

Maintaining Order and Decorum during Executive Operations Committee Meeting

There were concerns expressed by members of the committee during and after the April 25, 2023 Executive-Operations Committee about the tone of discussion at that meeting.  The contention at that meeting surrounded boundaries between staff and board members as well as decorum amongst meeting participants.  Mr. Peters suggested holding today’s meeting to address some of those concerns.

The discussion began with Mr. Peters sharing information about his understanding of this district’s structure.  NVSWCD has an Executive Director while many soil and water conservation districts have a District Manager or District Administrator instead.  He noted that years ago NVSWCD’s board delegated a lot of authority to the Executive Director.  As a result, the board is not as involved in day-to-day operations as it might be in another district.  This makes this organization different.  Mr. Peters gave some examples of other SWCD structures as he understands them.

Ms. Cross commented that it is perhaps time to fortify and clarify these roles for everyone’s benefit and understanding.  She emphasized that what the board decides, or has decided, as to governance trumps guidelines that are included in the DCR director orientation.

Ms. Billger added that significant work on this issue was done through the Personnel Committee in 2021.  The goal of that work was to establish clear boundaries for the various staff and board roles at the district.  The intent was to cement what was unclear.  She noted that although the personnel policies were adopted, there remained some disagreement about specific governance issues.

Mr. Peters then read a prepared statement, “Maintaining Decorum in NVSWCD Board and Committee Meetings” which he also circulated in printed format.  He noted that NVSWCD current policy doesn’t mention decorum, He wanted to make sure that board members understood what he felt to be appropriate policy regarding decorum in meetings.

Ms. Shackley expressed her feeling that it was important for the board to understand that at the April Executive Committee meeting, the issues raised about staff and board roles by a member of the board was directly related to conversations she had with the Executive Director following the March 28, 2023 meeting and with that board member in early April.  Ms. Shackley noted that her name was not mentioned at the April Executive Committee meeting out of respect for her privacy. 

She appreciated the board member who raised the concern on her behalf but realizes that not speaking herself may have caused additional confusion. 

Ms. Shackley expressed her understanding for and appreciation of the passion, energy, and dedication with which the board approaches its work on behalf of the district and the community.  However, she advocated for the board to follow established protocols when setting committee meetings, establishing new priorities, and assigning work to staff.  When board members fail to ensure, through conversation in advance with the Executive Director, that staff have the time and capacity to complete the work already assigned to them and the ability to take on additional projects or assignments, needless stress, and confusion result.  The Executive Director understands this aspect of district function and any requests and ideas routed through him can be addressed based on staff workload and availability.  He has the ability then to shift work to other staff members or delay current projects in favor of new and pressing ones. 

Ms. Bordas noted that when someone speaks to her in confidence, she will not break that confidence.  Instead, she will work behind the scenes to bring about the needed outcomes.  Polite discourse is needed and that additional work on governance is also necessary.   Understanding the difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified staff, she encourages her fellow board members to be sensitive to staff workload.

Ms. Billger added that boundary issues between the board and staff have been discussed for three years. Further, she expressed her concern that decorum awareness be addressed to the entire board and not to just some of the board.

Mr. Peters and other members of the board expressed their appreciation to Ms. Shackley for her comments.

Mr. Woode also thanked Ms. Shackley for her comments and noted that other staff have come to him with similar concerns.  He is not always at liberty to share these comments because it is important that he develops a rapport of trust with members of the staff. 

CLOSED SESSION (9:15 am)

A motion (Bordas-Cameron) to go into closed meeting as provided for in the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), to discuss personnel issues, was approved unanimously by voice vote.  Another motion (Bordas-Billger) to invite Ms. Cross and Ms. Shackley to remain in the closed meeting was also approved by voice vote.

OPEN SESSION (9:29 am)

A motion (Bordas-Cameron) to reconvene the Executive Committee meeting in open session was made, certifying that, during the closed session, only business matters specifically identified in the original motion were discussed.  The motion was approved by voice vote.

Ms. Bordas asked that copies of the district’s current policy manual be circulated to the board.

Adjournment

There being no other business, and following a motion (Bordas-Billger), Mr. Peters adjourned the meeting at 9:31 am.