Laila Racevskis1, Tatiana Borisova1, and Jennison Kipp2 1Assistant Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida

2Resource Economist, Program for Resource Efficient Communities, University of Florida

Contentious water and

land use issues in NE FL Complex processes of stakeholder

engagement: TMDL and BMAP Anecdotal evidence of stakeholder

dissatisfaction with these processes Little understanding of how stakeholders

perceive the BMAP development process

8-month training program on collaborative leadership

Practicum team of 6 Fellows from academia, law, local government, and engineering

Collaborative project to improve understanding of stakeholder perspectives of water quality issues in northeast Florida

Florida’s longest river Listed as one of nation’s

10 “Most Endangered Rivers” in 2008

Slow flowing river, difficult to flush pollutants

Major pollution sources: wastewater treatment plant discharges and stormwater from urban and agricultural areas

Flows from Welaka north to river mouth at Mayport

Decline in water quality due to industry, farming and urban development

Largest nutrient contributor in LSJ is treated wastewater

Runoff from Tri-County Agricultural Area

Current pollutant loads exceed levels needed to meet state and federal water quality standards

State regulatory mechanism that sets a maximum flow of specific nutrients in a watershed

Lower SJR is subject to TMDL requirements as established by Florida DEP

Requires nitrogen and phosphorous reductions

Implementation strategy: BMAP

Florida DEP convened a LSJR TMDL Executive Committee in 2002 to assist in development of a BMAP to achieve the basin’s TMDL

Complex process that involves many stakeholders with diverse interests

How has the process worked, and what are stakeholder perceptions of it?

1. Improve understanding of stakeholder opinions regarding water quality management in the LSJR

2. Improve understanding of stakeholder perceptions of the availability and quality of information on water quality management in the LSJR

3. Collect information on the manner in which such information is being communicated

4. Share results and lessons learned with other regions who may engage in similar processes in the future.

3 Focus Groups conducted with representatives of key stakeholder groups: Agriculture Environmental NGOs Local government staff

Participant recruitment done with assistance from local extension offices

Facilitated 2-hour discussions Results transcribed and analyzed for content

and themes

Water Quality Causes of water pollution Perceptions of contributing

sources Fertilizer application rates

Values and Trade-offs Nonmarket values of the river Tradeoffs associated with

protecting the river Process

Representation on Executive Committee

BMAP development timelines Communication

Research and Education Scientific information Education Role of Land Grant university

Policies and Programs Policies and projects used to

address water quality problems

Future policies and projects Success stories

Finger-pointing: Ag feels that it takes the blame too often and other sources not held accountable. However, environmental groups recognize that ag is unfairly targeted

Perception of state agencies – positive and negative

Opinions about water quality credit trading

Misbalance in composition of Executive Committee

Stakeholder opinions not heard, even from groups that had representation on the committee

Importance of general public perceptions/attitudes and education

Importance of accurate and available data BMPs create challenges for farmers and need

to be economically feasible – lack of financial resources

Improved communication needed Improved data sharing needed Broader representation of stakeholder groups on Executive

Committee Stakeholder education, invest early on in the process Engage stakeholders more effectively – participatory and

collaborative processes Find common ground Address distributional and economic consequences of proposed

nutrient allocations Allocate time and resources to evaluation of the TMDL/BMAP

processes Encourage information exchange about the process across

watersheds in the state Conduct technical peer review of analytical methods and

products by neutral experts

Stakeholder input reveals process deficiencies Other regions and states can benefit from this

information Results will be disseminated back to

participants and other interested stakeholders Additional focus groups may be conducted

with utilities, homeowners associations, developers, engineers, home builders

Thank You!

Questions?

Contact:Laila Racevskis

racevskis@ufl.edu