I love Richmond, Virginia. It's less than two hours from my hometown and though I've never lived there (not for lack of effort - the job market isn't so hot, and never has been), I love the city. I love its historic past, both beautiful and ugly, its extremely gritty recent past, and the wonderful 21st Century city that it's becoming. But change (or even growing up) isn't always easy in Virginia. As the saying goes - it takes 8 Virginians to change a lightbulb. One to do it, and the other 7 to stand around and talk about how much better the old one was.
Richmond, like many cities and counties in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, finds itself - after 400 years of unbridled development and habitat destruction - in the vice grips of federal water quality mandates. One, the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, demands compliance by 2025. The other, the Richmond MS4, demands compliance by 2018. Arguably, the City of Richmond is not likely to comply with either the TMDL or the MS4, which means a costly Federal Consent Decree is likely. More on that in a bit.
First, how does a municipality "comply" with these mandates? Largely, compliance is made through the completion of "projects" that reduce the input of key pollutants (typically nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, bacteria, and trash) into interstate (federal) waterways like the Chesapeake Bay. "Projects" include sanitary sewer upgrades, tree plantings, stream stabilization, wetland creation, and other efforts that generally reduce sewage and stormwater from reaching large water bodies. Each "project" is assigned a pollution reduction value (i.e. measures like rain barrels and tree plantings get a relatively low score, while sewer plant upgrades receive a high score).
A measure of some controversy has been the relatively generous crediting of stream restoration projects that 1) stabilize eroding stream banks, 2) enhance hyporheic exchange, and 3) reconnect the stream to the floodplain on a more regular basis. The City of Richmond has staked much of its 2018 MS4 compliance hopes on the construction of three stream restoration projects, one of which is known as the Reedy Creek Restoration Project.
Reedy Creek is a very typical fall line stream in a developed area. It is generally highly eroded, and any historic floodplain wetlands have been drained due to stream downcutting in some areas. In some areas, however, the stream has a relatively stable cross-section. There are many trees present, however, many of them (like maples and poplars) are not considered to have high value for habitat or nutrient uptake. Much of the stream valley is subject to run-outs and headcuts associated with the watershed's urban hydrographs. In short, the system is a mess. Here are what I believe to be indisputable facts:
1) Some sections of Reedy Creek are extremely unstable.
2) These sections will not "heal themselves" in a human timeframe, even if all runoff was removed from the watershed (impossible).
3) Trees will have to be removed to do the work.
4) The planted trees will not achieve that same size for decades.
5) Trees do, eventually, grow bigger, if they are maintained and kept free of vines.
6) The TMDL and MS4 permits are driving restoration projects.
However, much more is *in* dispute. The large, tree-holding area of Reedy Creek showing the most erosion happens to be City property. If you're the City of Richmond, and you have to do these "projects" by 2018, the one way you can possibly achieve that is by using City property. That's not in dispute, either. There is no way between 2014 and 2018 that the City could negotiate enough private property projects to comply with the permit requirements. However, it appears that the City didn't feel compelled to share their early plans with the community surrounding the park. In fact, the City DPU (the MS4 permittee and the stream project sponsor) still doesn't seem ecstatic about this whole "public input" thing. To their point, the MS4 and TMDL permits may have specified this project, and certainly did have public input periods, which I'm fairly confident this community ignored.
Enter a bunch of local do-gooders, or, at least they think they are local do-gooders, the Reedy Creek Coalition. I chuckled at an online comment that read something like, "How come the only reference to the restoration of Reedy Creek on your website is "Stop the Stream Restoration?!" .....and it's a valid question. The Reedy Creek Coalition isn't fond of the way this project materialized (which seems like a fair complaint) or the way that the City plans to re-align a stream on City property (which seems like less of a fair complaint). I was excited to read one article that said that the City had not considered the validity of Reedy Creek Coalition's alternative plan for watershed restoration. Upon hunting for that "plan," I read another article stating that it was simply a list of other City-owned properties in the watershed, that maybe could possibly sort of somehow be used for stormwater reduction. As someone who has built 200+ ponds, wetlands, streams, rain gardens, etc., I know that a list is not a plan. A plan is something that provides adequate information to judge cost, impact, and benefit. After considering this for a while, I can't get over my feeling that this "plan" wasn't meant to be a real plan at all.
This begs a bigger question: What is Reedy Creek Coalition's vision for saving Reedy Creek and restoring it back to some prior version of itself? What calculations have been done on the alternatives they suggest? Where does their strategic plan say the highest quality projects would be - and how was that calculated? To be fair, those same questions should be asked of the project proponents as well!
But I haven't seen any calculations - it certainly seems like the City wants to build this project because they have decided to build it; the Reedy Creek Coalition appears to object to the project because they have decided they don't like it.
If the Reedy Creek Coalition succeeds in killing this project, I can virtually guarantee a few outcomes:
1) In 2018, the City of Richmond will specifically blame this RCC for the City's failure to attain pollution reduction goals (and again in 2019, for the TMDL 2-year milestones). That will become the reputation of Reedy Creek Coalition. I cannot imagine trying to fundraise on that public reputation. Especially when fines are levied, creating an excuse for the City to raise taxes/fees (and explicitly blame RCC).
2) Reedy Creek will not be restored, uplands or downstream, in this generation. The state and city agencies will not allow substantial funding to flow to this watershed due to demonstrated risk of project failure.
If City DPU succeeds in installing this project, I can virtually guarantee a few outcomes:
1) Reedy Creek Coalition will publicly document every eroded pebble, every dead planted tree, every slightly misplaced boulder with exposed soil behind it. We have a guy who does this at restoration projects in Maryland. He is miserable; hearing him speak with the media is even more miserable. "Look here! It's dirt! This project is a failure!" The City can look forward to that, if they continue on their present course.
2) Unless substantial stream monitoring protocols are already in place, the City will have a hard time categorizing the site as a "success," because the majority of people talking about the site will remind everyone else of the dead trees.
A Real Framework for the Restoration of Reedy Creek
What does this all mean? Well, in the words of comedian Keegan-Michael Key, "Ya done messed up!" The two primary parties in this dispute have a lot to lose by sticking to their guns, and they seem reticent to admit that. Might I suggest a "both, and" approach to the restoration of Reedy Creek instead of an "either, or?"
For instance, the parties could execute an MOU that provides:
1) RCC to hire a stream restoration engineer (at their own cost) to recommend specific tree-saving techniques to City DPU. Perhaps 10 major recommendations, of which 5 (City's choice) *must* be accomodated. RCC must provide these recommendations to City DPU in 90 days or less.
2) City will place "escrow" type funding with a local conservation organization with the capacity to do actual watershed restoration activities (unfortunately, that means probably not the organization whose restoration goal is "Stop The Restoration!") for the purposes of 10 growing seasons of mechanical and/or chemical control of invasive species.
3) City will establish an "escrow" or "tree trust" funding for 30 years that will ensure that within 30 years, forest canopy coverage is high or higher than pre-restoration.
4) RCC will desist from anecdotal stream condition descriptions, and instead hire an independent ecological consultant (at RCC's own cost) to perform a functional assessment (recommended: Harmon-Starr Functional Pyramid) on various reaches of the stream to document whether City DPU's proposed restoration method will provide meaningful "uplift" to the stream's condition (if not, consider abandoning work or reducing impact in those areas).
5) RCC will serve as the primary partner on the restoration of the private property "concrete gully" upstream. City DPU agrees in concept to provide speedy permit review and grant application support letters (RCC should be able to raise the (guessing) $1.5 million to accomplish the concrete channel restoration). RCC may be able to negotiate that the City provides up to 50% matching funds for that effort, as well (or, even more importantly, $200,000 in start-up funds to begin the survey, engineering, and permit work). Also, local partners like RCC typically have better success navigating private property concerns (and right of way costs) than City agencies. If RCC is serious about treating the stormwater to Reedy Creek, and not simply using the "concrete gully" as a red herring to stop the project downhill, RCC will readily pursue this huge opportunity for their organization.
My overall worry is that the City of Richmond doesn't care all that much about Reedy Creek, if they never produced a set of alternative approaches and didn't conduct meaningful listening sessions for the community. My overall worry is that Reedy Creek Coalition might not care that much either, if they have no concrete plan for advancing meaningful-scale watershed restoration work with or without the City's engineers.
There is a huge opportunity, and huge obligation, for community and city leaders to work together in this period of generous funding for watershed restoration and simply get it done in a way that everyone will be happy to describe to their grandkids one day. But as of last week, the two parties couldn't be much farther apart. And if Reedy Creek continues to erode and unravel (and take out big, beautiful trees) for another 30 years, I don't think anyone will be proud to tell their grandkids about their role in that lost opportunity. "I tried to steamroll a community, and failed!" "Oh yeah, well I stopped the City from investing in our community - and they never came back!"