1. Laila Racevskis 1, Tatiana Borisova 1, and Jennison Kipp 2 1 Assistant Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida 2 Resource Economist, Program for Resource Efficient Communities, University of Florida

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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?

8. 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.

9.  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

10.  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

11.  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

12.  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

13.  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

14.  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

15. Thank You! Questions? Contact: Laila Racevskis racevskis@ufl.edu